Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Jun 1994

Vol. 443 No. 7

Irish Horseracing Industry Bill, 1994: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Doyle

Will the Minister indicate what procedures he will put in place to ensure that the new racing authority will produce annual accounts and that they will be presented not more than six months after the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate? What is the problem with the present Racing Board's accounts and why they are one of the best kept secrets — maybe they are the worst kept secrets, but they have not appeared in print? Will the £1 million Supplementary Estimate of last Christmas put the Racing Board's accounts for 1992-93 in the black?

What will be the position of the accounts when the new racing authority takes over, assuming it takes over the liabilities as well as the assets of the present Racing Board? Will the Minister give the up-to-date position on the Racing Board's accounts and say why they have not been published for almost two years?

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. J. Walsh)

The section states that the Authority and subsidiaries must produce annual accounts and have them audited and submitted to the Minister within six months of the end of the financial year. The accounts will then be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have found in practice that State bodies usually present their accounts around September of each year. The Racing Board's 1993 accounts are due and will be produced around September of this year. I am anxious that accounts be presented within six months of the end of the financial year and that is why this section has been included.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 29 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 19, before section 33, to insert the following new section:

"33.—(1) A person shall not determine or disseminate the starting price on any horse race at a race-fixture at an authorised racecourse save under and in accordance with a starting price licence.

(2) The Authority shall, subject to this section, grant a starting price licence, subject to such conditions or restrictions as it sees fit, to a person who is acceptable to it and is nominated by the executive of an authorised racecourse or a body representing authorised racecourses to determine and disseminate the starting price in respect of horse races—

(a) in the case of a nomination by the executive of an authorised racecourse, at race-fixtures at its racecourse, or

(b) in the case of a nomination by a body representing authorised racecourses, at race-fixtures at any or all racecourses which that body represents.

(3) It shall be a condition of a starting price licence that the person who makes the nomination under subsection (2) shall not have any involvement in the determination or dissemination of the starting price or any property rights in relation to the starting price to which the licence relates.

(4) In the absence of a nomination acceptable to the Authority under subsection (2), the Authority may grant to another person a starting price licence, subject to such conditions or restrictions as it sees fit, to determine and disseminate the starting price in respect of horse races at race-fixtures at any racecourse specified in the licence in respect of which a starting price licence has not been granted under subsection (2).

(5) There shall not be more than one starting price determined for the purposes of dissemination in respect of any particular horse in any horse race at a race-fixture.

(6) The Authority may, in order to protect the integrity of the starting price return—

(a) restrict who may be granted a starting price licence, or

(b) limit the number of starting price licences.

(7) A starting price licence shall be in force for such period as the Authority may decide and in order to protect the integrity of the starting price return different licences may be in force for different periods.

(8) The Authority may, in order to protect the integrity of the starting price return, revoke or suspend for such period as it thinks fit a starting price licence.".

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 on the principal list of amendments are being replaced now by one single amendment, amendment No. 23 on the current list.

The starting price return is the return made by a person at a race fixture which has examined the generality of the odds available to punters at the track and from the on-course bookmakers. This person takes into account what level of bets is being placed with the different bookmakers at the particular odds and then calculates what he assesses to be the odds which are typically available to punters at the track on each horse at each race at the off. These odds are then used by bookmakers on the high street for paying bets. It is obviously critical to the off-course betting scene that the integrity of the starting price return is maintained. The system for returning the starting price for the past few years has been the subject of a contract between the people calculating the starting prices and the Association of Irish Racecourses. A situation has developed in recent years where two contracts existed and, therefore, for certain events there were two starting prices which, obviously, led to confusion. It does not protect the integrity of the starting price return and could have serious consequences for off-course betting on Irish horse racing.

In the section as published it was not our intention to alter the current regime in any way other than to ensure that as soon as possible there is no more than one starting price disseminated in respect of any race, that the situation whereby two starting prices were being disseminated is not allowed to recur and that the job continues to be carried out by independent and reputable people. The section did not refer to any association representing racecourses and hence gave the impression that it was intended to allow up to 26 licences, one for each racecourse. It was not envisaged that it would work out like this in practice. The proposed amendment clarifies the intention considerably. It is envisaged that the licence will be issued to an independent and reputable organisation but this will be done on the nomination of the association representing racecourses. A provision is included to allow individual racecourses to nominate a body. It is not anticipated that this will be used except in the exceptional circumstances where the association was not able to continue to represent all racecourses.

There will now be a specific requirement, by the insertion of a new subsection (5), that there will be no more than one starting price returned for any particular horse in any race. The definition of "starting price" in the old subsection (6) is also being deleted as, by its nature, the phrase does not lend itself to definition in precise terms suitable for legal terminology and those involved in that aspect of the industry are very familiar with the term and its meaning in practice.

Mrs. Doyle

I welcome this amendment. Section 33 in the Bill as published was parliamentary gobbledygook of the worst order. With respect to those who drafted it, it meant very little to people in the industry who were trying to make sense of this difficult question. For the past three years at least there have been two systems of determining the starting price at virtually all racecourses. We have had different starting prices on the one horse in the same race published in the different racing press and the national dailies could have a different SP from that in The Sporting Life. On occasions, when the two systems were operating in parallel, there were two different favourites in the race. That may seem unlikely but it happened. There are instances where accumulator bets were struck nominating the favourite and if two different favourites were returned by the racing press——

Mr. Power

What about the generous bookmakers?

Mrs. Doyle

As we know the bookmakers pay only on the IRS return and that added further to the complication. If there was a differential between the Press Association return and the IRS return, as quite frequently occurred and occasionally the differential was substantial, it caused mayhem. The integrity of the whole system was brought into question.

I accept the Minister's amendment. Above all we must maintain integrity in the system. There can be no question about how the system operates, it must be above board and transparent. There can be no confusion that could allow two different SPs to be returned on a horse in a race.

I think the Minister has got it about right. He is removing the confusion under the present system which was compounded by the section as originally drafted. This appears to be a good section and I look forward to seeing it operate in practice in the best interests of the consumer — for "consumer" read "punter". This section seeks to eliminate confusion on starting prices and maintain the integrity of the system beyond question.

Mr. Power

I fully support this amendment. It deals with a very important area in the Bill. As Deputy Doyle outlined, a ridiculous situation has been prevailing whereby two different sets of starting prices are being returned. This has created difficulty on a regular basis because people who are being paid a certain price in the betting offices feel they are entitled to more. It is ridiculous that such a situation developed and this section will put an end to it.

Serious consideration should be given before a licence is granted to an independent organisation. It is important not to have a repetition of the "Yellow Sam" incident as anyone who was at that race and saw the starting price returned on that horse would have been very surprised. In the interest of protecting the integrity of the starting price it is important that an independent organisation is charged with it. It should be given to someone with a proven track record and with no question marks over his dealings with racing over a period. Integrity is vital as someone with bad intentions would have an opportunity to abuse the system. It is important to have an independent structure that will provide the true starting price. There may not be a definition but in my book the starting price is the one generally available at the off in any race meeting. That is the price that must be returned, and it is important that it happens.

Mrs. Doyle

I understand an agreement has been reached between the Irish Racing Services and the Press Association, the two groups now providing SPs at racecourses. Under the aegis of the Association of Irish Racecourses there has been agreement to amend the terms of access of the Press Association to racecourses, thus ensuring that from now on they will take the SP returns of the IRS. In a sense the industry has seen the writing on the wall in terms of what the Minister is trying to achieve and only one body, the IRS, will be making the SP returns available for the Press Association to publish. Having said that will the Minister state whether there is any risk of returning to a monopoly?

I feel comfortable with what I understand to be the new arrangement that will soon be announced given that the Association of Irish Racecourses has brokered it. Concern was expressed in regard to the monopoly and the prices the IRS was charging the media generally before the Press Association gained access to the racecourses. That concern was caused by an apparent monopoly in the delivery of the SP returns. Is there any possibility that we would get back to that with the new agreement that is about to be reached? I am happier now because it is with the agreement of the Press Association that this new arrangement is about to be put in place and I understand that the Association of Irish Racecourses will have a say in the price Irish Racing Services charge the media for the general racing returns, including SP returns, that it will sell as their product.

Is the Minister concerned that if a single company provides SP returns and the other racing information services, there will be a monopoly in this area and that there could also be a question of overcharging? Is the Minister satisfied that the new arrangement will be satisfactory?

Mr. J. Walsh

First, I thank Deputies Doyle and Power for speaking on this amendment and accepting it. We have had wide-ranging discussions with various interests and sought to have this amendment to cover all eventualities, to ensure the transparent return of starting prices and to have one starting price. Subsection (4) of the amendment states that "the Authority may grant to another person a starting price licence, subject to such conditions or restrictions as it sees fit ...". I believe that addresses the Deputy's concern in relation to monopolies or any other activities.

Mr. Dukes

For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that what we are doing is in fact what is set out in amendment No. 23, that is, deleting on page 19 of the text those lines between lines 15 and 32, leaving lines 32 to 45 and then removing the last line on page 19 and the first few lines on page 20?

Mr. J. Walsh

The old section 33 is being replaced entirely by this new section as set out in amendment No. 23.

Mr. Dukes

I do not wish to nitpick but I would point out that there is a spelling error in subsection (2) of the new section. If it is the Minister's intention to delete section 33 in its entirely, he needs to make a small amendment to the text of amendment No. 23, the acceptance of which, as it is before us, would leave in place the proviso contained in the old section 33.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy in possession of the new list of amendments?

Mr. Dukes

Perhaps not, and that may be the problem.

Mr. Power

Deputy Dukes is using an old race card.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure copies of the new list of amendments are available. The Deputy may have my copy with pleasure.

Mrs. Doyle

My colleague will find that the new list of amendments will allay his concerns in that regard.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill".

Mrs. Doyle

May I ask a question in relation to section 34 (b) (ii) which refers to regulations made under the Totalisator Act, 1929? In the interest of clarity I would like the Minister to put on record exactly what that refers to. Is there any risk it could be interpreted to confine the tote indefinitely to on-course betting? What is the point of that subsection given that ours is the only tote in the world that loses money, and it is a monopoly. I am concerned about the future operation of the tote. We need to hear the Minister's views on this subsection and whether there is any risk that it could in fact narrow the operation of the tote in the future.

Mr. J. Walsh

The Deputy will recall that much criticism was voiced on Second Stage that the existing tote is not making money and that it is probably one of the few tote operations that has not been able to pay its way. The provisions of the Bill will affect the tote and how it may be structured and will allow the Authority to reorganise the way in which the tote is operated so as to put in place the structure which will be more efficient and, hopefully, more profitable.

In this section, the Authority or company of the Authority may hold and operate a totalisator licence. This is a continuation of the provision in the 1945 Act simply giving the Authority power to operate a tote betting service. This section allows for the service to be provided by a subsidiary company. The Authority or the subsidiary company could then go into joint ventures if necessary on developments in this area. An amendment of the Totalisator Act in section 63 of this Bill will remove the one technical restriction in that Act which would have prevented the extension of tote betting to, for example, the high street. What we are doing is allowing that to happen. Simple amendments to the Department of Finance tote regulations and the Racing Board's tote licence could then provide for such an extension of the tote if the Authority makes a case for it.

Mrs. Doyle

Has the Minister any plans to amend the Totalisator Act, 1929 or to bring forward amendments to it?

Mr. J. Walsh

Not at this point but this section will allow the Authority to examine the tote and see for itself that it is not making a profit and is not providing the service which the racecourse operators or the punters want. It will be a matter for the Authority at the earliest possible time to rationalise the tote as it sees fit and, if necessary, set up an independent stand alone company to provide this service efficiently and profitably.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Doyle

I shall be strongly opposing this section. In the absence of hearing the Minister's detailed views on the necessity of having the section in the Bill, I find it difficult to understand why the State now needs to become involved in the role of bookmaker. It cannot operate the tote efficiently and it is now telling us that there is something in relation to the new semi-State Authority that is being established that will operate the bookmaker business better than the private sector is doing at the moment.

I see no logical reason for the State to become involved in the business of bookmaking. There are those who question whether it should have the monopoly with the tote section but that is a matter for the new Authority to examine. Will the Minister put on record his thinking as to the logic in extending to the State Authority the role of bookmaker? Legislation exists in relation to bookmakers. There are some difficulties in relation to bookmakers; updating and amending might be necessary but there is one call I have not heard from any sector of the racing industry and that is for the State to become involved in the bookmaker business. I am not sure why the Minister feels he can set the State up in competition to the private sector.

We have talked about this Bill nationalising horse racing. This is one area where the Minister thoroughly deserves that tag. I firmly believe that the philosophy of the Minister's party is that the private sector should be allowed to get on with providing services and products generally and that the only role of the State is protecting the common good or providing a service the private sector cannot or does not provide well. Perhaps I am missing the point but I fail to see why the new Racing Authority, a semi-State Authority, needs to set itself up as a bookmaker.

Mr. Dukes

I join Deputy Doyle in questioning this section. It goes to extraordinary lengths to make clear what the Minister has in mind because it explicitly refers to the formation of a company to perform the functions conferred on the Authority by the Bill as set out in section 10. They are widely drawn although one has been removed. It refers to the operation of a totalisator and the Minister has drawn our attention to section 63 of the Bill which covers that. It then goes on to state that it can form a company for the sole purpose of carrying on business as a bookmaker. Who wants this? I am not sure that Deputy Power is hell bent on there being more bookmakers, particularly if there is one which will not be accessible to the Deputy and would be impervious to his blandishments at any time in the future if, as I am sure he does, the Deputy wishes to expand his business.

It is inappropriate at a time when there is substantial rationalisation of the bookmaking business. It is out of keeping with that to talk about setting up a new bookmaker. Many people in the business have a more colourful word than "rationalisation" for what has been happening in the industry over the last number of years. The last thing the industry needs is for a State company to become involved. People at race meetings do not grab your elbow and say they want the State involved in the betting industry. Unless the Minister has a good, solid reason — I have not heard or seen it — he will need a third list of amendments to modify this.

Mr. J. Walsh

This recommendation came from the industry. It is not intended under this section to allow the Authority to operate as a bookmaker. It will allow a subsidiary of the Authority to apply for a bookmaker's licence.

Mr. Dukes

It is the same thing.

Mr. J. Walsh

It is qualified further in section 36 that such a company could only be established with the consent of the Ministers for Agriculture and Finance. Deputies are concerned about the risks that may be involved in a State body operating as a bookmaker. It is almost 50 years since a Racing Board Bill was enacted and it may be as long again before such a major change as this is made. If there are developments during this time which would make the bookmaker option a desirable one to pursue this section would allow for that.

Mrs. Doyle

Come, come.

Mr. J. Walsh

It is an enabling section. The consent of both Ministers would not be given unless serious research had been carried out on the matter and detailed proposals submitted which would justify such a development. It would be possible for the Authority to provide funds for the industry from this source and lead the betting industry in the development of new and improved facilities.

Mr. Power

There are on-course and off-course bookmakers. In the last few years a betting office was opened at Leopardstown race track for the first time in the history of Irish racing. It was a tremendous success but the on-course bookmakers objected to it. It was situated away from the betting ring and it brought people out from there. It made a number of changes which prevented the betting office on the track taking bets on Irish racing. They could only bet on British racing. Eventually after a lot of controversy——

Mrs. Doyle

They were driven out.

Mr. Power

That was one of the biggest success stories. The customers were given what they wanted.

Mrs. Doyle

The Deputy does not need the State to start up betting on-course.

Mr. Power

I am pointing out the difficulties. They led to a bookmaker closing a successful business. We are trying to satisfy the customer.

Mrs. Doyle

Agreed.

Mr. Power

It is vital that agreement is reached between on-course and off-course bookmakers. I was in Leopardstown last Wednesday and the busiest bookmaker on the track was the one who was betting on the night racing in Britain. There is a demand for that. If we cannot attract customers to the race track it will not survive. It is important to give the customer what he wants and if the Minister's efforts help to achieve that, so much the better.

Mr. Dukes

Do the Deputy and the Minister propose that this Authority would go to the trouble of setting up a company solely devoted to carrying on business as a bookmaker to take bets on night racing in England? The Minister has not given any reason for this except that it might be another 50 years before the Act is modified and, in the meantime, it might be handy to have this provision. That ain't no way to run a railroad. There are umpteen other things the Authority might decide it would like to do sometime in the next 50 years for which the consent of the Ministers might be required. It has wisely been said: "There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in our philosophy" but we do not legislate for them. If the Minister does not have a specific reason for making this provision he should not do so. If, in 24 years' time, the Authority needs some power the Minister of the day could bring an amendment to the Act before the House. To say that someone might have a gleam in their eye sometime in the next 50 years is the reason we need this provision is nonsense and the Minister knows it.

Mrs. Doyle

I listened with interest to the contribution by Deputy Power. May be the ethics Bill should indicate he would declare from where his expertise in this area comes. We know but others reading the Dáil report may not be so well versed. His point is well made but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. There is need for debate as to whether we have on-course bookmaker shops such as were driven recently from Leopardstown. We should look after the consumers' wishes and examine their demands in this area. I have heard the consumer demanding that the State provide this service. The Minister has not said why we should legislate for the State to become involved in the bookies business. I suggest that the State stays a million miles away from it. Enough bookmakers are struggling to make a living without adding competition from the new Racing Authority.

The Minister said that the authority would not set up as a bookmaker. With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, we are speaking to two sections — I do not know whether this is advertently or inadvertently. I was referring to section 35. Section 36 states that the authority may, either by itself or with another person, promote and take part in the formation of establishment of a company. In other words, the authority can become involved in the bookmakers' business either on its own or with others. The bookmaking industry, a private sector industry, should stand on its own feet. This provision is indicative of the Minister's philosophy regarding this Bill. I am surprised that he, a Fianna Fáil Minister, would want to nationalise the bookmaking industry or allow the State to get involved in it. There is absolutely no need for this provision.

God help us if we do not get an opportunity to discuss this multi million pound industry some time within the next 50 years. This provision is unacceptable in the extreme and I ask the Minister to delete sections 35 and 36 (1) (c). There is no logical reason this provision should be included in the Bill. The Minister said that the industry has demanded that the new racing authority should be able to set up as a bookmaker but he has not given us even one reason the industry made this demand or told us which components of the industry are in favour of this provision. Is it the Association of Irish Racecourses, the Turf Club, the regulatory body, the chairman, certain members of the board, some of his special advisers or a sectional interest who want the new authority to become involved in the bookmaking industry? We need to know this information as the integrity of the new board has already been besmirched by the nomination procedure proposed in the Schedule.

If there is another reason for the inclusion of this provision in the Bill then we should be told what it is. We will debate the Ethics in Government Bill next week or the week after, and the way we behave in this House and the reasons certain provisions are included in legislation must be totally transparent. This Bill must be in the best interests of the horseracing industry and the consumer. However, I see nothing in sections 35 or 36 (1) (c) which leads me to believe that this provision is necessary. On the contrary, bookmakers, a private sector component of the horseracing industry, should be allowed to stand on their own feet and sink or swim depending on market forces. There should be no distortion of this industry by including a provision in legislation which will enable the authority to become involved in it.

I thought Deputy Power would have a stronger view on this issue. I accept his lecture about the Leopardstown Racecourse needing its own bookmakers' office, but I still do not know his views on whether the State should become involved in the bookmaking industry. I suspect that he agrees with me but I understand the delicate position in which he finds himself. I would like to hear his views on this matter and promise not to call a vote if he is straight with me. I do not understand what Deputy Power and his colleagues in the bookmaking business stand to gain from supporting legislation which will enable the State to become involved in their industry. Does the Minister really want to nationalise a private sector industry? Can he give me one reason section 35 should be included in the Bill?

Mr. J. Walsh

This section was included in the Bill on the recommendation of the industry. The part of the industry which made this recommendation was composed of a broadly based group which included the Turf Club, the Racing Board and the Association of Irish Racecourses. It was a unanimous recommendation of what is generally known as the Dowling Committee. This enabling provision was included in the Bill to allow the authority to establish a company sometime in the future with the consent of the Ministers for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and Finance. Permission to do this would not be given unless serious research was first carried out and detailed proposals submitted which would justify such a development in the future.

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister has been very selective in taking on board the recommendations of the Dowling Committee — he quotes from its report when it suits him and when he departs from it he says that the Attorney General or someone else said that the language did not stand up from a parliamentary point of view etc. The Dowling Committee suggested that the authority or its subsidiaries "may own and-or operate by itself, or as a joint venture, on and off course bookmaker shops and may carry on the business of a bookmaker at authorised racecourses or in the precincts thereof". Has the Minister accepted the principle of the Dowling Committee recommendation that the new racing authority may own on or off course bookmaker shops on its own or as a joint venture? The Minister said that the Turf Club, the AIR and others suggested that this provision be included in the legislation but I still do not know the case they put forward which persuaded the Dowling Committee et al that the new racing authority should become involved in on and off course bookmaker shops. What case did they put forward? I do not understand why the private sector cannot continue to operate the bookmaking business. If there is a reason it should not continue to do this I have failed to extract it from the Minister, apart from a statement that representatives of the industry wanted the authority to become involved in the bookmaking industry. What is the logic of extending this power to the new racing authority?

Mr. J. Walsh

The people involved in the industry were looking for ways and means of raising finance and possibilities to explore in this regard. This was one of the recommendations they made.

Mrs. Doyle

We are getting there slowly.

Mr. Dukes

They want to move in, in case they run short of money.

Mrs. Doyle

Does Deputy Power still support this provision?

Mr. Dukes

It has taken a long time to get that information from the Minister.

Mr. Power

I do not understand why Deputy Doyle is getting on her high horse over this issue.

Mrs. Doyle

I do not care whether it is high or low as long as it is a fast horse.

Mr. Power

If one was to place a bet on the possibility of this provision being implemented one would get fairly good odds.

Mrs. Doyle

I agree, and that is the nonsense of including it in the Bill.

Mr. Dukes

Why include it in the Bill then?

Mr. Power

I accept the points made by the Deputy about totes and the way they have been functioning, or not functioning as the case may be, but major changes have taken place in the racing and betting industries in recent years. For example, some Saturday morning race meetings in South Africa are beamed by satellite into betting shops in Ireland. We do not know what changes will take place in the future and the Minister is including this enabling provision——

Mr. Dukes

Why include it?

Mr. Power

It may be necessary in the future. To be honest I cannot see it being used for a long time. I am not too enthusiastic about this provision but I do not understand why Deputies are getting so upset about it.

Mrs. Doyle

Why is it included in the the Bill?

Mr. Power

It is possible that other changes will take place in the future.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy has no idea why it is being included.

Mrs. Doyle

Good try.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 36.

Amendments No. 25 and 26 not moved.

Section 36 agreed to.

Section 37 agreed to.

SECTION 38.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 27. I observe that amendment No. 28 is related and suggest that we discuss both together.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 21, subsection (1), line 1, to delete "after giving notice to" and substitute "subject to the agreement of a majority of".

The provisions of this section allow the Authority to establish or lease and operate racecourses. Will the Minister say why he believes the Authority should establish racecourses, whose bright idea it was and what arguments were advanced? At the very least, if the Authority is to establish, lease and operate racecourses it should be obliged not only to give notice to the executives of all authorised racecourses who will be affected but endeavour to get some agreement from them — the purpose of this amendment — to provide that this be done subject to the agreement of a majority of the executives of all authorised racecourses.

The purpose of amendment No. 28, which is related, is to insert, at the appropriate place, a specific and explicit condition that racecourses operated by the Authority would be subject to the same conditions of authorisation as any other authorised racecourse because that is not clear from the text of the Bill as it stands.

I do not know whether the Minister can give us any more reason than he did in the course of the last discussion why he believes the Authority should establish racecourses. Other members, I willingly admit, are more intimately and frequently acquainted with all these matters than, I, I regret to say; I wish I had more time for them — but our problem is that we possibly have too many racecourses. There have been occasions in the not too distant past when problems led to the closure of a racecourse. There are several places nationwide which I will not name because I do not want to embarrass anybody, where racecourse executives are put to the pin of their collar to devise ways of ensuring that their racecourse continues in existence and has the wherewithal to provide the facilities punters want. Deputy Power knows perfectly well what I am talking about in relation to one racecourse. They are using their ingenuity to ensure that their racecourse survives.

In introducing the Bill the Minister stipulated that this new Authority will have the statutory right to establish or lease and operate racecourses. The Minister would have to give us some explanation if he simply came forward and asked that the Authority be given power to lease an existing racecourse, but he wants it to have the power to establish a new racecourse, or racecourses, at various venues nationwide. What evidence suggests that we do not have sufficient racecourses? Can the Minister tell me that the complaints and difficulties voiced by racecourse authorities nationwide are without foundation, that there is no problem of two many venues and that we could do with a couple of new racecourses run by an Authority established by the State? I have not heard anything to indicate that the Irish racing industry lacks a few extra racecourses to be run by the State. Yet the Bill wants to give the Authority power to do these things. I want to know why the Minister thinks we may need extra racecourses, what is the evidence, what would their function be and how would they fit into the present scheme of things? If they are to be established by this Authority or leased and operated by it, how will they be regulated? I do not like the idea of an Authority which has the power, under the terms of this Bill, to lay down conditions for the authorisation of racecourses being able to operate a racecourse without being specifically charged with the duty of observing the standards it stipulates for other authorised racecourses. I do not like the Authority being judge and jury in its own case, particularly when it is a matter of getting into competition with people already in the business of running racecourses; that is an extremely bad principle. The fact that somebody suggested it would be a good idea to have this power in case it might be needed over the next 50 years is not an argument for inserting such a provision.

The sensible way of going about this would be to recognise what the dogs in the street, or perhaps the horses on the road, will tell you any day of the week, that our problem as far as the number of racecourses is concerned is that many venues are competing for events and fixtures; that we would be doing a very good job if we got an Authority that could compile a list of events and fixtures in comfortable and convenient racecourses. If we could be confident of a series of attractive fixtures in existing racecourses and persuade more people to attend them, we would not have any worries about the idea of setting up new racecourses. I want to know the Minister's thinking on that. Let us have none of this "just in case" somebody might feel it was a good idea over the next 50 years to set up this Authority, that we want to have this power included.

Of course, there is another possibility and I should like the Minister to tell me whether this is behind the proposal. Giving powers to the Authority to establish or lease and operate racecourses might be the way of undertaking what might be described as a rationalisation of racecourses by the Authority; in other words, the Authority would need the power, to become a tenant, take a lease on or purchase a racecourse and, to have that power, something like this provision would have to be inserted in the Bill, when it would move in as a tenant or an owner of a racecourse to close it down. Is that the reason the Minister is inserting this power into this Bill? If it is he should inform us of that fact because we should know what we are getting into before we give these powers to the Authority. Is this one of these "just in case" provisions, in case somebody might think it was a good idea over the forthcoming 50 years? Is it being inserted because we do not have sufficient racecourses or because the Minister feels he might want to have an instrument to acquire racecourses and close them down as part of a rationalisation procedure? We need answers before giving an Authority the kind of power sought in this section.

Mrs. Doyle

I will pick up where Deputy Dukes left off — or could this be the Mallow racecourse clause? Perhaps that is what this section is all about, that if by fair means or foul the Minister cannot acquire Mallow racecourse the new Authority will be able to move in, lease or operate it. Is that what is in the Minister's mind? Under the provisions of sections 35 and 36 the Minister has effectively attempted to rationalise the bookmaking industry and section 38 seeks more rationalisation of the horseracing industry. This new Authority, whenever it wishes and for whatever motivation, may decide to move in and take over, lease, purchase or control racecourses throughout the country and close them down. What is the hidden agenda in relation to this section and what is it really about? As Deputy Dukes said, is it another "just in case clause"? Will it be another 50 years before we come back to discuss this industry again? I see no logic for extending the remit of the Authority over and beyond that of the present board. Is it beyond doubt that any racecourse owned and operated or leased by the new Authority will be subject to the exact same standards and modus operandi of all other privately owned racecourses? If not, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment in my name and that of Deputy Dukes.

I assume the Minister's amendment No. 33, which seeks to delete lines 25 to 30 and substitute "to license racecourses under the Rules of Racing", extends to all racecourses including those owned and operated by the board which will transfer to the Authority. I assume it also extends to any racecourse that the Authority may, after giving notice to the majority of the executives of all authorised racecourses, establish or lease and operate and that they will, whatever their relationship with the new Authority, be operated to the same standards and requirements as those in the private sector. Under the provisions of section 38 why are the present powers of the board being extended in relation to the operation, maintenance and closing down of racecourses? We want to know the real agenda. What racecourses are for the chop? What has been decided by the Minister and the triumvirate that put all this together? Three committees later we still have the a la carte version. Did the Dowling committee recommend this too and, if so, at what page in the Dowling committee report so that I can see exactly what in the legislation is relative to the Dowling committee? Is there an agenda with some of those whom the Minister has spoken with privately and, if so, what is it all about? What is the future for Wexford, Kilbeggan and Roscommon and the smaller racecourses which are vital to the local economy? Racecourses are a very important part of the leisure industry in the towns and the hinterland they serve. Why further rationalise an industry that should be left to the private sector?

Mr. McGahon

I agree with Deputy Dukes on this section. This section is a nonsense because the dogs in the street know that there are many tracks in the country struggling for survival. It is beyond the bounds of possibility that a new track will open at any time in the future following the financial disaster that occurred in the Phoenix Park. The only locality that could possibly sustain a new track in the future is Cork city. Like Deputy Doyle I ask what is the position about Mallow racetrack and why is it cloaked in secrecy? Will the Minister tell us the likely future of that track. The inclusion of this section is a nonsense. I ask the Minister to look at the existing 27 tracks with a view to some type of rationalisation of racing in each of those tracks. There is no doubt that the mixed bag on offer to some of the country tracks, such as Dundalk and Wexford, is neither viable nor attractive to punters. The Dundalk track took a wrong turning many years ago when flat racing was promoted for, perhaps, a particular individual's benefit and when the national hunt racing, which was essential to that track, was sidelined. I prefer flat racing but it is not suited to tracks such as Dundalk, Wexford or Bellewstown. The new Authority should have a role in identifying the future of these tracks because there is no doubt that in the next ten years several tracks will cease racing. The inclusion of this spurious section is a nonsense. As Deputy Doyle asked, what is the hidden agenda about Mallow race track and why can we and the racing world not be told what is its future?

Mr. J. Walsh

That is a very straightforward section. First and foremost this section emanated from section 14 of the 1945 Act and has been in existence for some considerable time. This section gives the new Authority power to establish, lease, maintain, develop and operate a racecourse. Before it leases or operates a racecourse the Authority must inform the executives of all existing racecourses. Amendment Nos. 27 and 28 are being taken together. Amendment No. 27, if accepted, would require the Authority to get the agreement of a majority of the existing racecourses before it could establish a racecourse. If adopted, this amendment would allow the existing racecourses to prevent the Authority from ever establishing a racecourse even where such a course of action might be in the best interests of the horseracing industry. Surely, if a majority of the racecourses felt that the Authority should not establish a particular racecourse they should use their two places on the Authority to persuade the other members of the Authority not to support the development. I could not, after going to such lengths to create a good representative balance of interests of the whole industry on the new Authority, then give a veto on certain developments to one particular section of the industry.

In relation to amendment No. 28, Deputies Doyle and Dukes wish to have it stated in section 38 that a racecourse operated by the Authority or a subsidiary will be subject to the same conditions of authorisation as any other authorised racecourse. There are no exclusions to the application of the provisions of section 59, which deals with the authorisation of racecourses. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary and I oppose both amendments.

The majority of tracks in the country are privately operated; only a small number is owned and operated by the racing board. Reference has been made to Wexford, Kilbeggan and other racecourses. Certainly the consumers in those areas go racing and would wish racing to continue in those areas. On Second Stage Deputy McGahon bemoaned the fact — many people agree with him — that the Phoenix Park and Baldoyle closed down. This was not due to insufficient punters or the lack of people to support racing but the problem lay with the type of racing provided there. Under the provisions of this section the new Authority can examine a privately operated track which wants to go out of business when the consumers in the area wish to keep it in existence. Apart from Navan, Tipperary and Leopardstown — the Curragh is operated by the Turf Club — all other racecourses are operated privately.

Deputy McGahon referred specifically to Mallow. The position is that agreement has been reached with the private owner, Mr. Fahey; the minute details of the transaction are still being worked out. I had hoped that they would have been worked out long before now because, as Deputies are aware, an allocation has been provided to modernise that race-track. In the southern part of the country, particularly in Cork, there are sufficient racegoers and people interested in the horseracing industry to support it. As everybody who has attended it knows, the facilities are not great and need to be upgraded. This section is the old section 14 of the 1945 Act and it is appropriate that it should be included in this Bill.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister has given an alternative to his previous excuse on the previous amendment — the idea that we might need it some day — the hairiest old one in the book, that is, this power has been in existence since the 1945 Act was passed. We all know this, but the section the Minister is talking about will give the Authority powers to establish, lease and operate racecourses. Will the Minister indicate how many new racecourses have been established since 1945, outline the circumstances under which they were established and state if he expects similar circumstances to emerge in the future? I already know the answer to the first part of that question but I am interested in hearing the Minister's answer to it as well as to the second and third parts. It is not enough to say that because this power has been in existence since 1945 for a different kind of Authority and a different set of circumstances we should carry it on. While the Minister seems to be prepared to contemplate the possibility that the position might change some time in the next 50 years and we should therefore give the Authority unspecified powers to do certain things, he does not seem to recognise that the position could change so much that the powers that already exist could be totally irrelevant.

Will the Minister tell me how many racecourses have been established since 1945 under the provisions of the 1945 Act? Under what circumstances were such racecourses, if any, established? Why does the Minister expect similar circumstances to emerge in the foreseeable future? Otherwise, he has no reason to include this section.

Mr. McGahon

I will answer the question for Deputy Dukes: no tracks have been established.

The Minister referred to the Phoenix Park. That was a terrible disaster for Irish racing, apart from the individuals who invested a large sum of money in it. Is there any vestige of hope that racing will return to that venue, perhaps a different type or a more varied programme? The facilities there are on a par with those provided at any race track in Britain or France; the turf is excellent. I understand that it could be reinstated in two to three months. It is a tragedy that this beautiful track in the centre of Dublin is not being used. If the Minister considers that it does not have a future as a race track surely the Government could use it as a national recreation and sports centre. The Government should acquire it. As someone who used to enjoy racing there I ask the Minister to encourage the sport to consider the possibility of reintroducing racing there, perhaps not on the same grandiose scale but it should be utilised for the benefit of racegoers and the horseracing industry.

Mrs. Doyle

I support my colleague. There is no doubt that many people would love to see racing re-established at the Phoenix Park. The market will dictate which end.

Does the Minister consider that there is a conflict of interest in the chairman-elect of the new Horseracing Authority calling for the establishment of a casino as part of an overall package at the Phoenix Park? There are those who would advocate the establishment of a casino — they have their own following — but experience in other countries shows that the operation of casinos is in direct conflict with the success of the horseracing industry. Is there a conflict of interest in the chairman-elect of the Horseracing Authority calling for the establishment of a casino at the Phoenix Park? I would like to hear the Minister's views.

Mr. J. Walsh

In an effort to be helpful I made reference to the 1945 Act in response to those who asked where this section was taken from and if there was a hidden agenda. I honestly do not know if any racecourses have been established since 1945 but I doubt it very much. I do know——

Mr. Dukes

The Minister of the day said it would be useful to have this power but his crystal ball was cracked.

Mr. J. Walsh

We are legislating to take us into the middle of the next century. I am aware that there are at least two racecourses which have a difficulty with the ground at their present locations; the tracks are not very good. They have plans to relocate. They may not be in a position to continue to operate but consumers at those locations want them to continue. Under this section the new Authority in its wisdom will have an opportunity to acquire the tracks or continue racing on new tracks.

It is my personal wish that racing would continue at the Phoenix Park but the market will dictate. I will convey the views of those Deputies who have stated that it is their wish that racing would continue to the new Authority. This would be a matter for it.

This is a sensible section. Where consumers want racing to continue at an existing racecourse or at a new location the Authority will have an opportunity to acquire the existing racecourse or establish a new one in the general locality.

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister did not answer my question. Is there a conflict of interest in the chairman elect calling for the establishment of a casino at the Phoenix Park?

Mr. J. Walsh

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to; I genuinely did not see that report. I do not think it is relevant to this section.

Mrs. Doyle

It could be very relevant to the future of the horseracing industry.

Question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 28 not moved.

Section 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Amendment No. 28a not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 29. Amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, are related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 29 to 33, inclusive, together if that is satisfactory. Agreed.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 21, line 19, after "shall" to insert "for the purposes of this Act".

It was intended originally to provide in the Bill for the continued representation of the regulatory body at international events at which the governing bodies previously had representation and at other events to be decided by the Authority. Also, the function of licensing racecourses was omitted from the Bill. In error the functions stated were restricted to race fixtures. The Turf Club was also concerned that there was no mention of its other activities, such as operating the Curragh racecourse, and that these provisions might restrict its functions in the future. The amendment covers all those issues. The functions are now stated to be "for the purposes of this Act". The Turf Club as a private body may therefore commence or continue to carry out its functions including operating racecourses, provided they are lawful and not inconsistent with its regulatory functions under this Act and are not functions assigned to another body, such as the Authority under this Act. Where it was inappropriate, the reference to "race fixtures" was deleted and reference to representation of horseracing abroad was also deleted as that is a practical day to day affair to be dealt with as the need arises and is not appropriate to legislation. The licensing of racecourses as a function of the regulatory body is inserted in the new paragraph (d)

Mrs. Doyle

I have no overall difficulty with the Minister's amendments. They go a long way towards improving this section which was quite contentious as originally published. The Minister is introducing a reference to the licensing of racecourses. Why did he omit the licensing of jockeys and race horse trainers? He will probably tell me that is superfluous and that the Turf Club will continue to carry out its functions in that regard unless responsibility for the matter is changed in the legislation. It would have been tidier to include all of the Turf Club's remit under one section. I am unsure as to why the Minister omitted those functions of the Turf Club.

I am not sure what the Minister means about representation overseas. Am I correct in understanding that members of the Turf Club or the racing regulatory body can continue to attend race meetings overseas in an official capacity or otherwise without the consent of the Authority? I assume the new racing Authority will not have the final say in regard to the regulatory body attending race meetings abroad. Paragraph (d), as printed in the Bill, insisted on the Authority considering it appropriate for the new regulatory body to represent Irish horseracing outside the State. Am I correct in understanding that the new racing regulatory body can continue to represent Irish horseracing outside the State and that the Authority will not need to deem it appropriate for it to do so? In other words, is it free to go as it pleases? Is that a correct interpretation of the position? Otherwise, the Minister's amendments improve this section.

Mr. J. Walsh

Deputy Doyle's analysis is correct. Paragraph (d) was deleted at the specific request of the regulatory body.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 21, paragraph (a), line 20, to delete "at race-fixtures".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 21, paragraph (b), line 21, to delete "at race-fixtures".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 21, paragraph (c), line 24, to delete "at race-fixtures" and substitute "for horseracing".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 21, lines 25 to 30, to delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following:

"(d) to license racecourses under the Rules of Racing.".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 21, subsection (1), line 31, to delete "section" and substitute "sections 41 (1) and".

I will be proposing an amendment to section 41 which will include reference to section 40 and, therefore, I seek in this amendment to make section 40 subject to section 41. I will explain the substantive amendment to section 41 under amendment No. 36. Amendment No. 34 to section 40 is a purely technical one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 21, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Any individual or association, company or body corporate on whom or on which the Racing Regulatory Body shall levy a charge, either on its own behalf or on behalf of the Authority or by the agency of the Authority or jointly with the Authority in connection with the powers conferred by this Act on the Racing Regulatory Body and on the Authority, shall have the right to appeal against the level of those charges to a court of competent jurisdiction.".

I rehearsed the arguments on this matter when we last discussed Committee Stage of this Bill and I do not intend to delay the House by repeating them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 21, lines 37 to 44 and in page 22, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"(1) All revenue from the management of funds held by the Racing Regulatory Body collected or acquired in the course of performing its functions under this Act and all revenue from funds held by that Body on the establishment day on behalf of race-horse owners or persons licensed by the Racing Regulatory Body under the Rules of Racing shall be taken into account in determining any charges made by it under section 40.".

I will address amendment No. 36 first. Subsection (1) is rewritten in its entirety to make its intention absolutely clear. When the regulatory body is setting its charges under section 40 it must take into account all the revenue it receives from the management of funds acquired by it in the course of performing its functions under the Act. Because there was not this clear distinction in law before the publication of this Bill the position in regard to funds collected before the establishment day is dealt with by a provision that the regulatory body must also take into account revenue from funds held on that day on behalf of owners and others licensed under the Rules of Racing. This is necessary to include official funds for the benefit of the industry and to exclude all private funds of the Turf Club in which the State has no interest.

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister's final point is covered by my amendment. The Minister's amendment refers to all revenue from the management of funds held by the racing regulatory body collected or acquired in the course of performing its functions under the Act and revenue from the funds held by that body on behalf of racecourse owners or persons licensed by the racing regulatory body under the Rules of Racing. What the Minister intends is what I want to happen, but the industry believes that if this matter was tested in court there would be ambiguity in relation to the wording of the Minister's amendment. My amendment strengthens the Minister's case in that it clearly states that the funds referred to in the Minister's amendment should exclude funds which properly belong to the Turf Club and are under the direct control of its trustees. As the Minister's amendment highlights, there can be no argument about the funds managed on behalf of owners or persons licensed by the racing regulatory body, but there is ambiguity as to the status of the funds which are now under the direct control of the trustees of the Turf Club, for example, investments as a result of running its shop efficiently over the years. That matter needs to be put beyond doubt. Therefore, will the Minister accept my amendment which strengthens the point made in his?

Mr. J. Walsh

A great deal of time was spent discussing this matter. I had discussions with representatives of the Turf Club because they want the matter to be clear. Amendment No. 36 was tabled following consultation and consensus with the Turf Club. I reiterate that this amendment is necessary because we want to exclude all private funds of the Turf Club in which the State has no interest. The Turf Club was concerned that the State might get its hands on some of its private funds. I believe the Turf Club is happy with the position. Deputy Doyle's amendment suggests the insertion in the Bill of a statement to the effect that the revenue from the management of funds which the regulatory body must take into account when determining its charges — referred to in section 41 — does not include funds which properly belong to the Turf Club and are under the direct control of its trustees. That is not necessary as section 41 (1), as amended by amendment No. 36, is very clear on the question of funds. All other funds are excluded. It would be a duplication to insert a list of funds which are not included. I oppose amendment No. 37 on the basis that my amendment adequately covers the position. This matter was discused in detail and I understand the Turf Club is satisfied with the position.

Mrs. Doyle

I will withdraw my amendment if I have leave to resubmit it on Report Stage. Will the Minister check again with the Turf Club on this matter before we take Report Stage tomorrow? It is my understanding that its legal advisers want to put beyond doubt the question of funds directly controlled by its trustees. What the Minister and I are trying to achieve for the Turf Club is the same thing. My information differs slightly in emphasis from that of the Minister. Given that there are substantial funds held under the direct control of the trustees of the Turf Club, we do not want to give a day in the sun to the legal people in trying to establish the nuances of the section. Their legal advice is that it needs to be put beyond doubt, lest it is ever challenged. So long as the wording of my amendment does not conflict with the Minister's intention, I ask him to accept it if it copperfastens beyond doubt the point made. Perhaps we could come back to this on Report Stage and the Minister might consult his contacts on this, who I suspect may not be different from mine.

Mr. J. Walsh

We can discuss this matter again on Report Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 37 not moved.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. McGahon

I have gone racing for 40 years and I would like to be told what integrity services are. Can they be bought across the counter or where can they be bought on a race-track?

Mr. Power

Jockeys must weigh in after each race.

Mr. McGahon

The Deputy knows too much about racing, I am addressing my comments to the Minister. Section 39 states that the Racing Regulatory Body will make and enforce the Rules of Racing and in doing so will promote integrity and fair play in horseracing. That is a beautiful aspiration to which we all pay lip service. How does the Minister propose to ensure that is achieved and that we do not have a repetition of the Flashman incident last week in which my grandmother would have got closer to the winner?

Mrs. Doyle

She was a fair operator.

Mr. McGahon

Thanks, Deputy. She was well bred.

Mrs. Doyle

A thoroughbred.

Mr. J. Walsh

I do not know what type of blue blood the Deputy's grandmother had.

Mrs. Doyle

Plenty of black print.

Mr. McGahon

I am intrigued by this aspiration. How is it proposed to ensure integrity and fairer play, not for the owner or the trainer but for the punter?

Mrs. Doyle

Perhaps we need an ethics in racing Bill.

Mr. McGahon

Where can I purchase a bottle of ethics at a race-track?

Mr. J. Walsh

Integrity services are defined as meaning those services at a racecourse provided at a race-fixture or related to the running of it which are operated by or on behalf of the Racing Regulatory Body for the purpose of enforcing discipline and ensuring the horses are run fairly and properly. The balance which we will have with the new Authority will ensure there is integrity and fair play in as far as is possible in this sport. The industry would decline rapidly without transparency and the clear perception that horses run fairly and up to their full merit. The point has been made repeatedly that in the racing industry the consumer is all important and it is my intention to ensure that integrity, fairness and above board practices apply throughout the industry.

Mr. McGahon

The Minister referred to the consumer. I am thinking of the consumer who might have had his or her monthly mortgage repayment on Flashman, which was beaten last week at the Curragh in the most blatant display of non-trying I have ever seen. What consolation is there for the consumer, who may have lost six months mortgage repayments in the Flashman incident when the jockey was dealt with by way of an Irish solution to an Irish problem, namely, a suspension for four days? The horse was given an easy run in the open spaces of the Curragh in the full glare of television cameras. How does the Minister propose to deal with that type of horseracing? Does the Minister accept that where a man has been found guilty of injudicious riding a four day suspension is a severe enough penalty? Will the Minister agree that is one of the reasons there has been a dwindlng in attendances at Irish tracks? More and more people are in the SP offices watching and betting on English races.

Mr. J. Walsh

The regulatory body has been responsible for the integrity services for two centuries. There is general agreement that by and large there is integrity in Irish racing and the Rules of Racing are enforced fairly and adequately. Of course, there are occasions when this type of incident occurs. The racing industry will be much improved with the reorganisation of the industry, a good representative authority and an increase in prize money. Prize money will be an extremely important attraction for owners, jockeys and everyone involved in trying to win the race. In the classics, group and listed races where there is generous prize money that type of incident does not occur. When account is taken of all those matters there will be better and fairer racing and consumers will be protected and given a fair deal for their investment.

Mr. McGahon

And it will have more integrity.

Mr. J. Walsh

Yes.

Mr. Power

I am not happy with the manner in which Deputy McGahon has made a scapegoat of a jockey and a trainer. In his contribution we have seen a repetition of the manner in which he referred to another trainer involved in a race in Leopardstown a few years ago. The jockey in question had to account for the riding of the horse and received a holiday this week when he would much prefer to be in Ascot. We have a body referred to as part of the integrity services of racing. The experts are always in the stands and able to judge where the jockey went wrong and where the horse was not trying. Stewards look after that. In the incident to which Deputy McGahon referred, the jockey was found not to have made a sufficient effort and for that reason was suspended for a few days. There could be 101 reasons why that happened and the Deputy is wrong to single out a trainer and a jockey.

Mr. McGahon

I singled out one specific incident

Mr. Power

What the Deputy has done is a repetition of what he did by his reference to a trainer a number of years ago. The Deputy should have learned from that incident and we should not have a repetition of it today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are having repetition now.

Mr. McGahon

I want to take issue with that nonsensical statement from my good friend. I referred to a specific incident. I know the Deputy is involved in racing and he is leaping to the defence of the people concerned. I shed no tears for the jockey. It is just too bad that he has not gone to Royal Ascot — I would have sent him to Rockall for what he failed to do on that horse. Deputy Power himself referred to horses being off from and not trying. Racing is rampant with that type of procedure and the Deputy knows all about it. If he knows a worse case than the Flashman incident, I would like him to tell me privately.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 43 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 38 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 38a is an alternative. The suggestion is that amendments Nos. 38 and 38a be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed. Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 44 of the Bill.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 22, before section 44, to insert the following new section:

"44.—The Racing Regulatory Body shall inform the Authority when making or amending any of the Rules of Racing.".

In regard to my own amendment No. 38, it was never intended to provide a veto for the Authority on any changes to the rules of racing. It was intended to give the Authority an input before any major changes were carried through on these rules. Hence the word "consult" was used.

Concern has been expressed that the process envisaged may have been viewed as interfering with the independence of the regulatory body in this function clearly given to it without condition under section 39. Hence the amendment is worded to provide that the regulatory authority must merely inform the Authority when it is making or amending rules.

Mrs. Doyle

This is a considerable advancement on the original section as published in the Bill. Time does not permit me to indicate just how important this change is, but certainly the independence of the racing regulatory body must be protected. I accept the Minister's formula of words and assurances that the Authority will have no veto on changes proposed by the racing regulatory body in amending any of the rules of racing.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 38a not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That involves the deletion of section 44 of the Bill.

SECTION 45.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We come to amendment No. 39 in the name of Deputy McManus. Amendment No. 39 is consequential on amendment No. 40. Amendment No. 41 is alternative to amendment No. 40. Amendment No. 42 is a further alternative and amendment No. 43 is related. It is suggested, therefore, that amendments Nos. 39 to 43, inclusive, be taken together.

Ms McManus

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 22, subsection (1) line 26, to delete "it" and substitute "an Appeals Board".

I am concerned about the type of appeals procedures that is proposed and the timing of the establishment of the appeals procedure. It is not clear from the Bill what precisely is involved. My other concern is that, as it is worded, it offends a basic tenet of natural justice, that is, the rule against bias. The section provides that where the racing regulatory body imposes a sanction against any person involved in horse racing it shall afford that person on opportunity to appeal to it against the sanction imposed. Surely the whole point of having an appeals procedure is that one is expected to go back to the decision makers to appeal a decision that they have already made. It is unfortunate that this vagueness and lack of clarity appears in this section of the Bill. My understanding of this Bill is that it is to include all aspects of horse racing under one Act. I am concerned that in this aspect where cases may be controversial — for example, the suspension of a jockey — the type of appeals procedure is not spelt out and is not independent of the RRB itself. There is an offence against natural justice, and even against constitutional justice, that needs to be addressed. I do not feel that the Minister has done that.

The Fine Gael proposal allows for a tribunal but still allows for people to be involved in that procedure who were part of the decision. I ask that the Minister clarify the position and ensure that there is an appeals procedure that is independent of the RRB in order that natural justice can prevail.

Mr. Dukes

I agree with the thrust of Deputy McManus' words and her amendments, which is why there are amendments in my name and in the name of Deputy Doyle to provide for an independent chairman of a tribunal and a majority of independent members on that tribunal for all the reasons Deputy McManus has set out. In this section, as in other sections of this Bill, it is undesirable that an authority be judge and jury in its own cause. That applies to other parts of this Bill. It is not an argument for the Minister to say, as he probably will, that the kind of situation for which this Bill provides has existed for the last 40 or 50 years. That simply is not good enough and we do not have to go back very far to think of cases where a good many people felt that injustices had been done. It is not so long ago that many of us here felt that an Irish jockey had been treated very severely in the United Kingdom and there was subsequently a rethink on that case. There was no other means of redress available to that person. Neither would there be here.

Although the Minister may argue that, broadly speaking, the system that has been in force up to now has worked reasonably well, it is not enough just to say that. We have an opportunity now to make sure that the system works better, that it is a fair system and that it is seen to be fair. It is appropriate that we should do that when we are not only setting up an Authority that has broadly the same powers that have been there in other hands since the 1945 Act was brought in but when we are in a number of respects giving that Authority further powers and revising the way a number of things are being done in the horse racing industry.

I cannot speak for Deputy McManus but she may agree with me when I say that I would not claim that the amendment in my name and in that of Deputy Doyle is necessarily the best way of dealing with the matter. I am not sure that Deputy McManus would make that kind of argument for her amendment — it is the kind of argument I have not heard from her up to now because she tends on the whole to be a very reasonable person. However, what is coming to the Minister from this side of the House is a concern with fairness and equity in relation to a sport that we hope will attract much more support. I do not know whether Deputy McManus would necessarily agree with that, but I would like to see it gaining much more support and if punters can feel that every aspect of the business is run fairly that is a good argument for them to get back into it. For the people involved it is essential that they have the feeling that things are being done fairly and in a manner that allows them some redress if they think they are being unfairly dealt with. One cannot feel that if the people who apply the sanctions are the only ones to whom one can appeal, and at the moment, that is the case. As the Bill stands, that would be the case from the enactment of this Bill. If the Minister will do nothing else, there is plenty of reason for him to think again between now and Report Stage and come back to us with a system that takes up the concern that has been expressed on this side of the House and that deals with the situation where people feel from time to time that an injustice has been done.

That applies to the matters in this section. If you will allow me to make a slightly broader case, Sir, the same applies to a great many other sections of this Bill. We will not have time to deal with them all in detail. There are places in this Bill where the Authority has certain powers either to discipline or to make regulations or charge people money, and unless the Minister makes a change in the Bill there is no way that the people who are affected by the exercise of those powers can appeal against what seems to them to be an unfair or unreasonable decision. I do not think, in 1994, it is reasonable to proceed on that basis. There are simple ways, such as the amendments we are talking about, of remedying those defects in the Bill.

Mrs. Doyle

The industry, top trainers and jockeys, are divided on this very contentious issue. Some of those who have fallen foul of the Turf Club and have come out on the wrong side of the argument as they perceive it believe there is a need for an independent appeals system, tribunal body to which to appeal their case. Others have felt so strongly that they have taken their case to the courts. Interestingly, in the most recent case the court upheld the decision of the Turf Club.

It is very difficult to find people for an independent appeals body or tribunal with the expertise of those in the Turf Club to hear cases independently of the Turf Club. However, I accept the case made on natural justice. At present, with the exception of the courts of law, there is no appeals procedure within the system. There is a case to be made for an appeals procedure and for the present system. What is the Minister's view on this matter? Perhaps leave could be granted to re-enter these amendments on Report Stage when he considers the points that have been made.

Mr. J. Walsh

The Turf Club operates an appeals procedure for people affected by its decisions and it has updated its procedures in this regard. This section obliges the regulatory body to continue to provide an appeals procedure and to ensure that appeals are heard in a fair and impartial manner. Amendments Nos. 39 to 43, inclusive, are being taken together and I will address amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 43 first.

These amendments propose the establishment of a special appeals board or a tribunal independent of the regulatory body to hear appeals under section 45 against decisions of that body which impose a sanction against any person. As Deputy Doyle said, this is a very contentious area and there are different views on it from different parts of the industry. I want to get a reasonable balance in this matter. The Turf Club has updated its procedures and I am confident it will continue to provide an appeals system that will be fair and reasonable and that will adequately protect the integrity of horse racing as it is generally accepted it has done for two centuries. I am aware of the case referred to by Deputy Doyle. The people involved know the business of racing better than most — it could be argued they know it better than any independent tribunal that may be set up.

The revised wording of subsection (2) of section 45 which is proposed in amendment No. 41 is intended to make clear that the regulatory body must continue to provide the appeals procedure and that the appeals must be heard in a fair and impartial manner. The racing regulatory body shall establish an appeals procedure to ensure that any appeal referred to it under subsection (1) will be heard in a fair and impartial manner.

Mrs. Doyle

That means my amendment is accepted in the Minister's words.

Mr. J. Walsh

Yes. The intention in amendment No. 42 is already catered for in the revised wording in amendment No. 41.

Ms McManus

There is a general statement in amendment No. 41 but it is not clear how that is to be delivered upon. It is all very well to say that procedures have been carried out in the past, but I understood the Government is particularly interested in the principle of transparency and I am not clear how to get over the difficulty about ensuring that appeals are heard by an independent authority, body or board other than that which made the decision in the first place. I would like clarification on that point.

Mr. J. Walsh

In order to make the position clear I have proposed amendment No. 41, that the racing regulatory body shall establish an appeals procedure to ensure that any appeal referred to it must be heard in a fair and impartial manner. That is written into the Bill and I expect that the body concerned would have regard to that section in any appeal made. By and large the system has worked satisfactorily. It has been updated by the Turf Club and I have every confidence that in implementing the new procedures it will take into account that subsection.

Mrs. Doyle

On the "just in case" logic, as it may be 50 years before we discuss this matter again, will the Minister accept the provision of an independent appeal or tribunal even if it is not enacted?

Mr. J. Walsh

The "just in case" principle does not apply.

Mr. McGahon

I am a little puzzled about the demands for an independent body. Everybody who has an interest in horse racing believes that natural justice should include an appeals system, but would an independent body be comprised of people who know the game — would it be comprised of people in the horse racing industry? Who would constitute the independent body? Would it be lawyers or whom?

Mr. Dukes

We would put the Deputy on it.

Mr. McGahon

As a punter, and we would put Deputy Dukes on it as a bureaucrat. Who would constitute the independent body and what would it be independent of?

Mrs. Doyle

Of the Turf Club.

Mr. J. Walsh

Independence is a very qualified state. There is a proposal for an independent body but I do not intend to accept it. The system will operate under the racing regulatory body. Under section 45 (2) it will be incumbent on the appeals procedure personnel to act in a fair and impartial manner and that will adequately deal with appeals brought before the body.

Mr. Power

I once heard a definition of independent: an independent person is someone on whom no-one can depend. Perhaps the position would be similar if we set up an independent body as suggested. In any walk of life a person who lodges an appeal hopes that the person hearing the appeal will have expertise in the area concerned. Deputy Doyle said that if you go outside the regulatory body you are not guaranteed expertise will be available. While some people have reservations about the way they have been treated in the past, this system is the lesser of two evils.

Mr. Dukes

As a member of a county council does the Deputy agree with appeals to An Bord Pleanála against the county council's decision?

Ms McManus

The Minister's reply was unsatisfactory. There should be a right of appeal for anybody against whom a decision has been made and I do not accept it is possible for a body, no matter how good it is, to be, as Deputy Dukes says, judge and jury. That is not the way the system works. For an appeals system to work people must feel confident that those who made the original decision will not also determine the appeal. It is interesting that the High Court held in a case in 1989 that the decisions of the Turf Club were not open to judicial review. What is the position for people who believe they have been unfairly treated? If they believe that the racing regulatory body has not acted in a fair and impartial manner, what recourse do they have if there is no appeals system outside of that body?

Mr. J. Walsh

I have spelled out as clearly as possible that the regulatory body, operating under section 45, will give an aggrieved person or organisation a fair and impartial hearing. It is open to anybody, as has happened in the past, to go to the courts if he feels he has not had natural justice in his appeal case.

Ms McManus

I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 40 not moved.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 22, lines 27 to 29, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) The Racing Regulatory Body shall provide an appeals procedure and ensure that any appeal referred to in subsection (1) is heard in a fair and impartial manner.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 22, line 30, after "Body" to insert "or a person acting on its behalf".

This is a technical drafting amendment to allow a person acting on behalf of the regulatory body to have the powers specified in the Bill relating to that body — a steward for a particular fixture, for instance — though they may not necessarily be a member of the regulatory body.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 46, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 47.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 23, subsection (2), line 11, after "may" to insert "request the Garda Síochána to".

The amendment is self-explanatory. Section 47 (2) states:

An authorised officer or a person acting under the direction of the executive of an authorised racecourse who has reasonable cause to believe that a person is not an authorised bookmaker or a person specified in a course-betting representative permit and is carrying on the business of a bookmaker at an authorised racecourse may remove the person (by force if necessary) from the racecourse.

In our amendment we suggest that they request the Garda Síochána to remove the person — by force if necessary — from the racecourse. The spectre of representatives of the racecourse or an authorised officer getting into physical conflict with an unauthorised bookmaker or whoever is not acceptable. The Garda Síochána are present at all race meetings and if there is a problem I think a request should be made to the Garda Síochána to remove the person, with force if necessary. We do not want racecourse personnel to get into the bouncer business, as was mentioned earlier when we discussed a similar amendment. I urge the Minister to accept the commonsense of this amendment.

Mr. J. Walsh

The amendment is seeking to transfer from authorised officers and racecourse executives the power to remove a person from a racecourse who is carrying on the business of a bookmaker without a permit and to vest that power solely in the Garda Síochána.

The power to issue, suspend or revoke permits and to generally regulate the business of book making at racecourses is vested in the Authority. It is then the racecourses that control the bookmaker pitches and when any of these rules are broken it is reasonable to give some power to the Authority and the racecourses to deal with the matter in the first instance. The power to remove unauthorised bookmakers has been vested in the Racing Board's authorised officers and the racecourse executive since 1945. In extreme circumstances it may be necessary to involve the Garda but certainly not in every case and I, therefore oppose the amendment. I think it makes a great deal of sense and I undertake to look at the section again and will consider bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage that will allow for the involvement of the Garda whenever necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 47 agreed to.

SECTION 48.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 form a composite proposal and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 46 and 47 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 23, subsection (1), line 13, before "The Authority" to insert "Subject to subsection (3),".

Section 48 is a long section, with 19 subsections. It sets out in detail the permits that may be granted or refused, the period of such permits, the conditions which may be attached, the obligations on the Authority where it proposes to refuse a permit or suspend or revoke a permit granted and other related matters.

Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are being discussed together. Amendment No. 46 proposes to make subsection (1) subject to the new subsection (3), proposed in amendment No. 47 as subsection (1). It deals with permits in general and subsection (3) introduces a special restricted permit. The new subsection (3) to section 48, which is proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 47, will restrict any permit issued to a subsidiary of the authority which is a licensed bookmaker not to allow such company to operate from a pitch on a racecourse. In my view it would be inappropriate for a company of the Authority to be competing with other bookmakers in the ring where the control of the Authority itself is as great as it is.

Amendment No. 48 proposes to delete the reference in the old subsection, which will now be subsection (4), to the possibility of the Authority refusing a permit based on a recommendation to that effect from a racecourse. A betting permit does not refer to a particular racecourse but permits a bookmaker to operate on any racecourse provided he or she gets a pitch. The provision as it stood could have been interpreted to mean that the Authority would have to consult all 26 racecourses before deciding on any permit and this would not be practicable.

Amendment No. 49 in my name proposes to add a definition of "employee or agent" in a final subsection of section 48. Under existing arrangements for representative permits the phrase "employee or agent" has a very limited meaning, which is defined in Racing Board regulations. As the phrase is now being used in the Bill, the definition must be given in the Act. There is provision in paragraph (b) of the subsection for its amendment by regulation.

Mrs. Doyle

I have no difficulty with the amendments to which the Minister has spoken. Time is running out and there are certain important sections it would appear we will not reach. Sir, would it be in order to move the remaining amendments tabled by my colleague, Deputy Dukes and myself so that we would be in order to re-enter them on Report Stage?

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot assist the Deputy in her request. We are obliged to deal with amendments seriatim, but the Deputy does have the privilege of submitting certain amendments on Report Stage.

Mrs. Doyle

Even though it has not been reached?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mrs. Doyle

Will I get the opportunity to speak to them at least once on Report Stage?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is so, Deputy.

Mr. Dukes

On amendment No. 49——

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 49?

Mr. Dukes

It is part of the group the Minister referred to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would prefer that we deal with the amendments seriatim and dispose of them. However, I will hear the Deputy.

Mr. Dukes

I am profiting from the fact that the Minister referred to it in passing. This amendment proposes to insert a new subsection (21) in section 48, but as far as I can count there are only 19 subsections in section 48. The Minister may have skipped a subsection.

Why does he believe it necessary to extend the definition of "employee or agent" to include those covered in paragraph (i)? A spouse or parent I can understand, but it is a little less easy to understand child and others. I think it is the first time I have seen "sibling" in a definition in legislation and nephew and niece are also included. I wonder why siblings, nephews and nieces are included? Deputy Power should have a particular interest in this, having a couple of fine strapping sons coming along; but I understand he has several siblings and I wonder if they would be happy to be included in the definition in this way? If siblings, nephews and nieces are included here, why are cousins not included also? Why is it necessary to draw the net that far?

Mr. McGahon

The Labour Party was not involved.

Mrs. Doyle

Was it drafted by the Labour Party?

Mr. J. Walsh

No. The position is that these are defined in the Racing Board regulations. They have been agreed by the Racing Board and the bookmakers and they can be amended if we so wish by regulation.

Mr. Dukes

If they have a mind to they could even include kissing cousins in the definition.

Mr. J. Walsh

If they have a mind to is right. I would draw the attention of the House to a number of inconsequential amendments to the text of the Bill. These involve merely the insertion of the word "the" in the following places: on page 2, part III — The Racing Regulatory Body; page 3, part V — The Bookmakers Appeal Committee; page 19, line 2 — the Minister for Finance; page 19, line 10 — the Minister for Finance; page 21, line 17 — The Racing Regulatory Body; page 30, line 4 — The Bookmakers Appeal Committee and page 39, line 32 — the Minister. The Bills Office asked me to draw these amendments to the attention of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 23, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) A course-betting permit granted to a company of the Authority shall restrict the company on a racecourse to operate only from a betting office.".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 23, subsection (3), lines 26 to 28, to delete "or where the executive of an authorised racecourse recommends that the Authority refuse such an application".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Walsh

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 25, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following subsection:

"(21) (a) In this section `employee or agent' means—

(i) a spouse, parent, child, sibling, nephew or niece of the authorised bookmaker, or

(ii) a person who has been in the authorised bookmaker's continuous employment on any authorised racecourse for a period of not less than 5 years.

(b) The Authority may by regulations amend the definition in this subsection.".

Mrs. Doyle

Can we have the answer to Deputy Dukes' question as to why that is 21 and not 20?

Mr. J. Walsh

I understand that there is an amendment which includes a new subsection and that brings the 19 up to 21.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment agreed to?

Mrs. Doyle

We are taking it on faith. We cannot see where it is but we will assume the Minister is correct.

Mr. Dukes

The siblings may yet regret this.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 48, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 49.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 25, subsection (2), line 19, after "person." to insert the following:

"Every such warrant shall include a photograph of the authorised officer.".

Mr. J. Walsh

This amendment proposes a requirement that all warrants issued to authorised officers should include a photograph. This proposal has some merit, but I am not sure that it needs to be put into legislation where it may prove to be unnecessarily restrictive. It is a measure which may be adopted by the Authority if the need arises and I will ask the Authority to take that into account, but I oppose putting it into legislation.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister did it in the Animal Remedies Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 49 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 25, before section 50, to insert the following new section:

"50.—Notwithstanding any provisions of this Part of the Bill, the Authority may set out regulations which will allow for the sale of bookmaker's pitches at racecourses so that authorised bookmakers with course-betting representative permits with not less than two years experience or service on racecourses, shall be able to purchase them freely.".

Mrs. Doyle

I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and re-enter it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 50 agreed to.

Sections 51 and 52 agreed to.

SECTION 53.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 52 is in the name of Deputy Doyle. I observe that amendments Nos. 53, 54, 55 and 56a are related. My suggestion is that we discuss them together by agreement, but time is fast running out.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 4, after "may" to insert "in the event of the authorised racecourses and the authorised bookmakers failing to reach agreement".

I welcome the Minister's amendment No. 53. He is obviously accepting the point I was making in a similar amendment to that which has been accepted. This amendment is self-evident. In the event of authorised racecourse operators and bookmakers failing to reach agreement, I have no difficulty in the Authority becoming involved and sorting matters out between them. I have major problems, however, with the Authority dictating to the racecourse operators the charges they may levy on bookmakers, for example, and other matters that relate to the excellent relationship that exists between bookmakers and racecourse operators. I would like to hear the Minister's views on this important issue and I urge minimal interference by the Authority generally in terms of existing relationships between different component parts of the industry. The racecourse operators and the bookmakers are well able to sort matters out between themselves and only in the event of them failing to do so or a difficulty arising should the authority be brought in to arbitrate.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill: in respect of each of the sections undisposed of that the section or, as appropriate, the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to and that the Schedule and the Title are hereby agreed to".

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 28.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, David.
• Bree, Declan.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Flood, Chris.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Hilliard, Colm M.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callely, lvor.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Ellis, John.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Power, Seán.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

CLASS="CP">Níl

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Michael.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín.

CLASS="CP">Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Boylan.

Question declared carried.