Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy O'Malley has been ruled out of order.
Irish Horseracing Industry Bill, 1994: Report Stage.
Acting Chairman
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
" `the Irish thoroughbred horse' means a horse eligible for entry into Weatherby's Thoroughbred Stud Book;".
On Committee Stage I made the point very strongly that, in the definitions section of this Bill, there is need for a definition of the Irish thoroughbred horse. I do not accept the Minister's prevarication on this, nor the excuses he gave for not accepting a definition. Given that he told us yesterday it is likely to be 50 years before we are back in the House and that he is in a frame of mind to insert "just in case" provisions, in case there is ever a debate on what is an Irish thoroughbred horse when it comes to legislation, or in a court of law, it would render this Bill complete to have this definition included.
The thoroughbred horse is an internationally recognised breed. Thoroughbred horses bred in Ireland or in the United Kingdom are registered in a General Stud Book covering both countries. This has been the case since 1791. The General Stud Book is maintained by Wetherbys and the registration process for Irish breeders is carried out by the subsidiary, Wetherbys Ireland.
The definition proposed but Deputy Doyle is incorrect in so far as the General Stud Book maintained by Wetherbys would include horses which are not Irish thoroughbreds but are bred in the United Kingdom. I oppose the amendment on the basis that it is not necessary. The phrase "Irish thoroughbred horse" is used once only in the Bill in a general way. It is generally recognised what we are talking about. There is no advantage to be gained in giving the term some precise definition in this Bill. However, if the Authority sees the need to define the Irish thoroughbred at some stage in the future for the purposes of the promotion function given it in this Bill, of course it may do so. Such a definition could be changed easily if circumstances such as stud book arrangements changed.
Factually the Minister is not correct in all he says but I accept that I am defeated in this endeavour and that he will not accept my amendment.
Acting Chairman
Is the Deputy pressing her amendment?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, line 26, before "48 (7)" to insert "47 (3)*,".
I am in agreement with this amendment. Perhaps we can discuss its intent when we get to amendment No. 25.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy O'Malley has been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, to delete lines 1 to 21 and substitute the following:
"11.—(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order confer on the Authority, in relation to the development and promotion of horseracing, such additional functions connected with the functions for the time being of the Authority, or the services or the activities that the Authority is authorised for the time being to provide or carry on (including functions of the Minister in relation to any directive, regulation or other act adopted by an institution of the European Union in relation to horseracing) as the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) No order made under subsection (1) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(3) No order varying or revoking an order made under this section (including an order under this subsection) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(4) The Minister may make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in relation to matters ancillary to or arising out of the conferral on the Authority of functions under this section, or the performance of functions so conferred (including provision for the transfer to the Authority of any property held by the Minister for the purposes of functions conferred on the Authority under this section).".
This amendment deals with the section that confers additional functions on the Authority. Had I been more alert yesterday I should have referred the Minister back to this section when he included his "just in case" provisions. This section is the Minister's "just in case" section because its provisions allow the Authority additional functions. This is a very generous amendment to allow the Authority extend its functions if deemed to be necessary at any point in the future in the best interests of the industry. Surely the later provisions allowing the Authority set up as a bookmaker, either individually or with others, could be covered by the provisions of this section? I feel very strongly about the later section where we allow the new racing Authority function with others, or as a subsidiary company, as a bookmaker, and to compete with the private sector bookmaking industry generally. Do we need the later section allowing the Authority to function as a bookmaker when we have this generous section 10 conferring additional functions on the Authority?
I ask the Minister to accept our amendment, in particular the point we made strongly on Committee Stage, that if and when additional functions are being conferred on this new racing Authority we need an affirmative motion, not just a regulation which can be annulled within 21 days. We need to do it by way of an affirmative resolution, to have a discussion, reach agreement and have a democratic input into any additional functions given this new Authority. We have experienced major problems with legislation in recent years — I know it arises because of our being a member of the European Union — in that more and more legislation is being enacted by way of directive or regulation without any democratic input by these Houses. We do not want to compound the difficulty in this area, or the democratic deficit, by including the procedure when it is not necessary.
I urge the Minister to accept our amendment which seeks a stronger democrative input into any change of the functions of this proposed Authority.
Deputy Doyle proposes to substantially amend section 11 which deals with the power of the Minister to confer additional functions on the Authority by order. In the present draft this order would be subject to the provisions of section 7. That means that the order would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and either House would have power to annual that order within the next 21 days on which they sit. The amendment proposes to amend section 11 so that an order under this section would not have effect until approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. That would defeat the purpose of the section since it has been included to cater for urgent circumstances that might arise when it would be appropriate that additional functions be conferred on the Authority at relatively short notice. The safeguards are that those functions must be connected with the functions for the time being of the Authority, or the services or activities that the Authority is already authorised to provide. The consent of the Minister for Finance is also a requirement. If the order is required to be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas this could delay providing for some technicality that would allow the Authority to react quickly to some new circumstances which might arise. The Dáil might not be sitting when the problem arises. There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill, as drafted, and on that basis I oppose the amendment.
On a point of order, if the Dáil was not sitting and changes of the order suggested by the Minister had to be made, how could an annulling resolution be tabled by the Opposition? How would the procedure work? The Minister may as well allow the Authority to do as it wishes because, effectively, during the long summer recess it can make whatever change it likes without any democratic input or debate in this House and no opportunity to annul the resolution, even under the existing minimum procedures.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
We come to amendment No. 6 which is consequential on amendment No. 7 and amendment No. 8 is an alternative to amendment No. 7. It is agreed to take amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 13, line 17, after "Authority," to insert "or".
Amendment No. 8 seeks to amend section 17 to extend the provisions on the prohibition on unauthorised disclosure of information so that they would also apply to a committee established under section 18 of the Act. I agree with the objective and sought advice on a suitable amendment. It was felt that the provision of section 17 should apply to members of any committee of the Authority whether established under sections 18, 19 or 20. I am, therefore, proposing a very simple change by way of amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to extend the section to apply to a member of any committee established under the Act.
I accept the Minister's amendment in which he has taken the substance of our amendment and tidied it up in better wording. I thank the Minister for taking our amendment on board.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 13, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(c) a member of a committee established under this Act,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order.
Why? Did we vote on it on Committee Stage?
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 9 was negatived on Committee Stage and must be adjudged out of order.
May I speak to the section?
Acting Chairman
I am afraid not.
I am very disappointed that my amendment has been ruled out of order. This is one of the great omissions in this Bill and one of the big problems in setting up the race fixtures committee and a race programme committee, which is totally superfluous. It weakens the Bill.
Acting Chairman
We come to amendment No. 10. Amendments Nos. 11 and 19 are related. Is it agreed to take amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 19 together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 14, line 31, after "race-fixture" to insert "and the race programme for the fixture".
It is interesting that this amendment is in order but I will grab the opportunity and say nothing about that. Amendment No. 10 covers the same point in amendment No. 9 which was ruled out of order. On Committee Stage there was a long debate on this point. There is an excellent procedure in this legislation for setting up the race fixtures committee and, under section 20, there is a separate procedure for setting up the race programme committee. It defeats the intelligence of most people who are concerned about the industry to understand the necessity for two separate committees for two important functions that must be done separately but I contend that a race fixtures committee as proposed would also be well able to act as the race programme committee. The functions of the race fixtures committee should include race programming. The race fixtures committee is at arm's length from the Authority and could include outside members, other than members of the Authority. It will have an independent chairperson and have a great deal of independence of the main Authority. It is felt in racing circles that the same terms of reference should apply to the race programme committee.
Race programming, race fixtures and financing are the key to the future of Irish racecourses and the racing industry generally. There must be impartiality, integrity and transparency in arranging programmes and major fixtures. If the Minister cannot take it on board now I ask him to look again at the unnecessary duplication in terms of these two committes before the Bill goes to the Seanad. These are two important and separate functions, both of which could be done by the race fixtures committee which will be seen to be at arm's length from the Authority and have no vested interest in either a racecourse or a particular sponsored race at any race fixture. The schedule removes much of the integrity and transparency from the new Authority due to the over-politicisation of the appointments. The race fixtures committee will consist of the chairman who will be both a member of the Authority and a steward of the racing regulatory body, one steward of the racing regulatory body, two representatives of authorised racecourses and three other representatives of the horseracing industry. Given the structure of the race fixtures committee and the fact that it will be at arm's length from the Authority — the politicised racing Authority — I urge that race programming be part of the functions of the race fixtures committee. That is critical to the future of many racecourses in the country.
Having read out the structure of the race fixtures committee I wish to point out that I understood on Committee Stage that the Minister agreed to amend section 19 (2) (c) to read: "two representatives nominated by the representatives of authorised racecourses", or words to that effect, in other words that the Minister was accepting the nomination of the racecourse representative association. Will the Minister confirm that under paragraph (c), line 19, page 14 of the Bill, he is accepting the nominations of the racecourse association to fill those two places on the race fixtures committee? That was my understanding on Committee Stage. I do not see the change in the Bill, as amended on Committee Stage. I urge the Minister between now and the Bill going to the Seanad to rationalise the committees to ensure that the race fixtures committee — the structure of which I thoroughly approve — also deals with race programming. Let us call a spade a spade because there will be vested interests in the new racing Authority of 14 members, ten of whom are political appointments. There will be vested interests in major companies, in major sponsorship and in the placing of major races at certain racecourses. If it is not done at arm's length from the Authority there will again be a question of the integrity of the Authority. I urge the Minister to please allow race programming to be done by the race fixtures committee.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 19 are being taken together. These amendments propose transferring the race fixture and race programme committee back to the regulatory body. It is also proposed that the regulatory body should authorise racecourses. Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 19 propose that the race-programmes should be set by the fixtures committee of the Authority.
The Authority will have the principal role in regard to the development of Irish racing, particularly in regard to its current funding. Fixtures are central to this and it is logical that the fixtures committee be appointed by the Authority. The establishment of the fixtures list is a sensitive issue and it is important that there is a careful balance in the composition of the committee charged with deciding the fixtures. We have provided for this balance in the legislation.
The programmes committee is also important and requires the participation of a number of people with specialist knowledge and expertise. It is sensible that it be left to the Authority to call on such expertise as required without constraining its options in this regard through tight legislative provisions.
It is important to emphasise that the work of the Authority in this and many other areas covers the industry on the whole island, not just this State, and it is critical that its potential on the whole island is tapped to the full. I will be formally asking the Authority to have special regard in all its activities to the development of the industry in Northern Ireland. In particular, I will be asking it to include the need to provide for that development in the terms of reference of the fixtures committee and the remit of the programmes committee.
The proposal in amendment No. 19 to allocate the function of licensing jockeys and trainers to the regulatory body is not necessary as this is one of its functions under the Rules of Racing and is already covered by section 39 (b). Deputies may wonder why I have gone to the trouble of specifying its function of licensing racecourses which is also provided for under the Rules of Racing. I, as well as others in the industry, felt that some people may misinterpret the provisions in section 59 relating to the authorisation of racecourses by the Authority as dispensing with the regulatory body's function of licensing racecourses——
On a point of order, are we dealing with section 59?
We are dealing with amendment No. 10.
The Minister is making important points and I would like to be in a position to respond but if I do I will be ruled out of order. The Minister is dealing with section 59; I thought we were discussing sections 19 and 20.
I am discussing amendment No. 10. I am making the point that the proposal in that amendment to allocate the function of licensing jockeys and trainers to the regulatory body is not necessary as this is one of its functions under the Rules of Racing and is already covered by section 39 (b). Deputies may wonder why I have gone to the trouble of specifying its functions of licensing racecourses which is also provided for under the Rules of Racing. I am giving an explanation because many people in the industry felt that some people may misinterpret the provisions in section 59 relating to the authorisation of racecourses by the Authority as dispensing with the regulatory body's function of licensing racecourses but this is not the case. The licensing function of the regulatory body relates to the condition of the track, obstacles etc., for racing while the authorisation relates to all the facilities at the racecourse, including accommodation for bookmakers, betting offices and punters. It is clearly a matter for the Authority to decide on authorisations.
On Committee Stage the Deputy asked if I would consider the possibility of amending section 19 to state that the two representatives of the authorised racecourses on the fixtures committee may be nominated by the authorised racecourses' representative body or should be the two representatives on the Authority. This may well turn out to be the case but it is a matter for the Authority. As the Authority will establish the committee it would not be appropriate for the Minister to interfere. The exact wording used in the Bill was agreed with the industry as the appropriate framework to enable the committee to be established. It will be a matter for the Authority to decide how the legislation should be implemented when enacted.
I think the Minister has reneged on what might almost be considered a promise.
Acting Chairman
Does the Deputy wish to reply?
I am not allowed although I would love to.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy may reply; only amendment No. 9 was ruled out of order.
I spoke on the issue.
A Chathaoirligh, you could be fined for over-use of the Whip.
That could be considered sexist.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 17, line 44, after "proper." to insert the following:
"The Authority shall act in a fair and impartial manner when considering requests from racecourses for funding and when allocating such funds.".
I retabled this amendment thinking I was on a promise from the Minister on Committee Stage but there is no evidence that he will deliver on it. Although I may appear jocose a serious point is being made in the amendment. Given the politicisation of the Authority and the avenue the Minister has chosen in structuring it, there is great concern in many of the component parts of the industry that vested interests might rule the day. I ask the Minister to include in the Bill a section insisting on fair play and to accept the amendment which relates to applications to the new Authority for funds.
There is a fear that there will be favoured sons or daughters when it comes to the distribution or allocation of funds. The Minister indicated on Committee Stage that he was not prepared to accept the amendment because it was being implied that the Authority might not act in a fair manner in considering applications. I understood him to say, however, that he would consider including before Report Stage a general requirement to act in a fair and impartial manner. Has the Minister considered this possibility? Where is that amendment? Will he point to where that requirement will be included in the Bill? Does he accept the principle, if not the amendment?
In amendment No. 13 to section 25 which deals with the application of funds of the Authority Deputy Doyle proposes that the Authority should be required specifically to act in a fair and impartial manner when considering requests from racecourses for funding and allocating such funds. I stated on Committee Stage that this would be unnecessary as one must assume that the Authority will act in a far and impartial way in performing all its functions under the Bill. The rules of natural justice would require it to do so. It was also my firm contention at the time that it would be unfair to write into the Bill a statement such as the one suggested which applies to only one or two of the Authority's functions.
As promised, I considered the possibility of inserting a general statement on fairness and impartiality which would apply to the Authority in performing all its functions. I have run into difficulty and been advised by the parliamentary draftsman's office that it would not be appropriate to include such a statement in the Bill on the basis that provisions of this nature are not used in other enactments in relation to bodies set up under statute. It is implied in the Bill that the Authority will act always in a fair and impartial manner. There are provisions in the Bill that may be used against any member of the Authority who does not act fairly and impartially. Under the Bill a member or members may be removed from the Authority. It could be argued that a provision such as the one proposed could be used by a person who vexatiously feels aggrieved with the Authority. Any person who feels legitimately aggrieved by the Authority can use the judicial review procedure. Such a provision, particularly if it was inserted on Committee or Report Stages, would imply that there might be a reason not to have full confidence in the Authority with regard to fairness and impartiality in the performance of its functions. I am confident the Authority will work harmoniously with all sections of the industry and treat them fairly in the best interests of the horseracing industry. I assume the Authority will act as an executive or board to direct and develop this important industry. I therefore regret that I have no option but to oppose the amendment on the insertion of specific statements relating to fairness and impartiality.
I have sympathy with the Minister in this regard because this is a pious aspiration and there are many pious aspirations in the world of racing. The Minister assumes the board will act in a fair and impartial manner and I accept his difficulty in that regard. We can only hope it will. However, there is a perception among the smaller tracks that there has not been a fair allocation, not only of prize money but of lucrative and attractive race dates. The Minister is hopeful, but can he not give us a more concrete assurance that the Authority will give a fair allocation to lesser known tracks? What change has he proposed? Who will decide whether the allocation is fair and proper? How will it be monitored? That is where the difficulty arises.
The Authority will decide. Ten of the 14 appointments to it are political and there are vested interests from large companies represented on the Authority. This has given rise to much concern.
Acting Chairman
Deputies can speak only once to the amendments, Deputy Doyle has the right to reply, but the Minister does not.
I am seeking information from the Minister in a very friendly and informal manner.
Acting Chairman
I would love to be friendly to the Deputy, but I am not entitled to.
I am carrying 12st. 71bs. and do not have the right to reply.
I will formally reply as we cannot hear the Minister's thinking on Deputy McGahon's contribution. There are major concerns about the new Authority operating fairly and impartially in relation to funding applications and other areas. The reason for those concerns stems from the Minister's decision to politicise ten of the 14 appointments to the Authority. He must accept the reason for those concerns. I had hoped the Minister might allay some of the concerns by inserting an overall clause requiring due care in relation to fairness and impartiality. He chose to make this a political Authority and to operate the old pals act, even as far as having school pals on the Authority. Perhaps the best authorities on Irish racing attended the same school as the Minister. This matter can be discussed in detail on the Schedule, but the Minister knows what I am talking about. Because the nominations to the board are not a well kept secret and because of concerns in respect of the vested interests of some of those appointed to the Authority, there is concern about it operating fairly and impartially in regard to funding applications, particularly from small racecourses.
This mechanism could choke to death and cull some of our racecourses. Small racecourses are concerned that this Authority will use procedures, such as the application for funding, to squeeze them to death. In a later section the Minister has provided for the Authority to run or lease such racecourses. The Authority might want to get its mitts on racecourses or get rid of them altogether if it considers them uneconomic.
I do not believe the Minister realises the concerns about the operations of the new Authority being fair and impartial in respect of fixtures, funding and all other areas. Major concerns have arisen because the Minister politicised the Authority with his cronies and school pals. He must accept that the structure he has chosen to select members of the Authority is a major cause of the concerns. There is a question mark about the integrity of the Authority even before it gets off the ground. This is a political patsy, a political Authority. It will be a mere coincidence if its members are the best people to run Irish horseracing. I hope the Minister is right. It would be interesting to see the expertise that would remain if one were to weed through the cumann cardholders or contributors to the major party in Government who are on the Authority. The Minister knows the nomination procedure he has adopted is wrong. Will he make a name for himself in Irish racing and sort out the nomination procedure before we come to the Schedule to this Bill? If the nomination procedure was seen to be fair and if component parts of the industry could nominate their representatives to the Authority, there would not be such concern about the lack of fairness and impartiality, particularly in regard to funding. The Minister has brought on his head these major concerns and he can blame nobody but himself. The nomination procedure of politicising ten of the 14 members of the new Authority is the main cause for those concerns.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are out of order.
Amendment No. 14 relates to section 27 which deals with finance. This section is a major weakness in the Bill and the Minister funked it in relation to funding for off-course betting.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Doyle may not speak to this amendment as it is out of order.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related. Is it agreed that they be taken together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 20, to delete lines 9 to 11.
We dealt comprehensively with this matter yesterday. This amendment relates to section 35 which allows a company of the Authority established for the sole purpose of carrying on the business of a bookmaker to apply for and hold a bookmaker's licence within the meaning of the Betting Act, 1931. We are allowing the new Authority to get into the bookmaking business. That is unnecessary; it has not been requested. The Minister stated yesterday on Committee Stage that the Dowling Committee apparently received requests from component parts of the industry, including racecourses and the Truf Club, in this regard, but he did not say why the Authority should want to get into the business of bookmaking and go into direct competition with private sector bookmakers. At the end of the discussion on this matter yesterday we squeezed out of the Minister that it might be an avenue to secure additional funding for the Authority in the future. Will the Minister elaborate on why we should allow the racing Authority to get into the business of bookmaking? We deserve to know the real reasons.
The Minister quotes the Dowling Committee when it suits him and drops chunks of its recommendations, blaming the Attorney General, when it does not suit him to accept them. Why was the Dowling Committee persuaded by certain sectors of racing that the new Authority needed the facility to set up in the bookmaking business as a direct subsidiary company, alone or with others?
Amendment No. 18 proposes the deletion of line 19 which allows the establishment of companies by the Authority for the sole purpose of carrying on business as a bookmaker. I suggest that line should be deleted as well as section 35. Section 11 which allows the conferring of additional functions on the Authority would be sufficient if at some stage over the next 50 years the Authority needed to operate as a bookmaker or get into the bookmaking business. Section 11 would be sufficient to facilitate that and it would enable it to do so by way of an order laid before the House for 21 days — probably in mid-August when we would not be able to annul the motion having regard to how things operate.
Why do we need specific provision for the Authority to operate a bookmaker's licence? The Minister has not justified his case. He should leave the bookmaking business to the private sector, few of whom can make a success of it. Most bookmakers are struggling and many are hungry. The public sector does not need to get into the business of bookmaking licences. Section 11 is an enabling section which provides that additional functions can be conferred on the Authority in the event of that being necessary over the next 50 years.
I repeat my response to the question on section 35 yesterday. I said it would be possible at some stage in the future for the Authority to derive funds for the industry from this source and to lead the betting industry in the development of new and improved betting facilities. It is arrant nonsense to say something was squeezed out of me at the end of the discussion. That is on the record and the Deputy can check the Official Report.
I have already done so.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 propose to delete the provisions which would allow a company of the Authority to operate as a bookmaker. I reiterate it is not intended in sections 35 and 36 to allow the Authority to operate as a bookmaker. Section 35 will merely allow a subsidiary of the authority to operate as a bookmaker. That is qualified further in section 36 which states that such a company could only be established with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Minister for Finance.
Deputies may be concerned about the risks involved in a State board operating as a bookmaker and I understand those concerns. I know Deputies may not wish to hear the argument again that it may be a long time before such a major change as this to horseracing legislation is carried through. I continue to argue that this Bill provides for as many eventualities as possible, including this one. As I said on Committee Stage, this provision was recommended by the Dowling Committee and I am not aware of any opposition to it in the industry. It may prove to be a potential revenue earner for the Authority.
Would it be equivalent to the tote which the public sector runs at present?
I intend to get that matter rationalised, sorted out and made profitable.
If it is as good as the tote I would not hold my breath about the money the Minister will get.
If there are developments during the lifetime of the Bill when enacted it will be a desirable option to pursue. The consent of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and of the Minister for Finance provided for this issue in section 36 will not be given unless comprehensive research is carried out on the matter which should include consultation with the bookmakers and detailed proposals that would justify such a development. It may be possible at some stage in the future for the Authority to derive funds for the industry from this source and to lead the betting industry in the development of new and improved betting facilities. I oppose amendments Nos. 17 and 18 for those reasons.
The Minister's explanation is ambivalent. While I do not share my colleague's angst about the composition of the board as long as the members are genuinely involved in horseracing activity, I agree with her that it would be undesirable for the State to compete with bookmakers for such a colourful part of racing. That may be the real reason it is envisaged the totalisator may be abolished in the future. If that is the case it would be understandable and it may be a useful option in the future. However, it would be a draconian step to introduce a direct threat to the bookmakers who are part and parcel of the colour at race meetings. Has the Minister had consultations, however informal, with the Irish bookmakers association about that possibility in the future? Can the Minister be more forthcoming about the real purpose behind this section? Is it proposed to scrap the tote at some stage in the future and perhaps replace it with a more modern or upgraded version? I would like to know that as it is in the interests of horseracing which we are here to serve.
I would rather the Minister replied. Will he indicate if he proposes to scrap the tote? I think we can take it he does not. Perhaps the Authority would like to scrap it, but that is another matter. I gather it will not be the Minister's decision once the legislation has passed both Houses of the Oireachtas. I think we have made our point. I consider it totally unnecessary, superfluous and, as common parlance would have it, previous, to include section 35 in the Bill. An earlier enabling section provides that additional functions can be conferred on the Authority and that should be sufficient. Unless the Minister has a hidden agenda, of which he has given little inkling and given that he has not discussed this matter with the bookmakers association and we cannot glean the real reasons that certain parts of the industry consider this requirement would be beneficial, we must reject section 35.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 21, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(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.".
We have retabled this amendment to obtain further views from the Minister in this area. On a later section Deputy McManus and others, including members of our party, discussed appealing decisions or charges levied by the Racing Regulatory Body. There are strong arguments in the industry on both sides about the need for a right to appeal or to establish an independent appeals tribunal in respect of charges levied or disclipinary decisions made by the Racing Regulatory Body.
This section deals only with the levying of charges. The case for natural justice was made yesterday on Committee Stage and I ask the Minister to consider whether in natural justice, and I know the view is not unanimous, those in the industry who feel they need the right to appeal to another body against decisions or charges levied by the Racing Regulatory Body should have that right. In other words, is there a case for setting up a tribunal or an appeals committee to adjudicate on decisions and charges made by the RRB? Would it be possible to have sufficient expertise on a so-called independent appeals body for it to make sense? That is my concern and yet I know many who have fallen foul of the RRB who feel very strongly that there should be an independent appeals procedure chaired, perhaps, by a retired High Court judge or someone with experience in this area. On the assumption that he does not intend to accept my amendment — he did not do so on Committee Stage — we should hear the Minister's views on whether an independent appeal procedure against any decision of the RRB, including the setting on charges, should be in place. If such an appeals procedure is not to be put in place, what are the Minister's reasons for feeling that all the rules of natural justice are sufficiently taken care of under the present procedure?
Deputy Doyle's submission is a fair one. Natural justice demands that an appeals procedure be initiated. It is essential to the success of this new racing body that an appeals structure should be set in place and there is a ready made candidate for such a body in the person of Judge Frank Roe who knows racing intimately. To balance that, why not include Judge Desmond O'Hagen who also has a knowledge of racing?
Amendment No. 20 is seeking a right of appeal for individuals against the level of charges imposed by the regulatory body as against the authority. The Turf Club has been imposing charges for 200 years, as have many other bodies in similar circumstances, without reference to legislation, and the two honourable gentlemen mentioned are members of that club. There will always be disagreement on charges but we must not create such a protective system as would prevent it from working. The representative bodies and their interests in the industry are capable of making their case to the regulatory body if penal charges are made in exceptional circumstances the normal system of redress through a judicial review would be employed. I oppose the amendment as unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 21, after line 43, to insert the following:
"(3) The funds referred to in subsection (1) exclude those funds which properly belong to the Turf Club and are under the direct control of the trustees of the Turf Club.".
I asked the Minister to consider points I made on Committee Stage yesterday. We were not a million miles apart in what we wanted from this section which deals with the funds of the Racing Regulatory Body and the transfer of these funds to the new authorities. The Minister had extensive consultation with the Racing Regulatory Body representatives and his amendment yesterday was an agreed one. However, the legal advice to what we still refer to as the Turf Club suggests that there may be some ambiguity in the wording that will now be in the Bill. The reference to funds in subsection (1) of the Minister's amendment excludes funds which properly belong to the Turf Club and which are under the direct control of its trustees. The difficulty is that if there were any argument or legal challenge the words are still slightly ambiguous. My suggestion is to add to the Minister's amendment another subsection which would clarify legally beyond doubt what both the Minister and I are agreed should happen.
The Minister's amendment on Committee Stage was to the effect that 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 the funds held by that body on the establishment day on behalf of racehorse owners or persons licensed by the Racing Regulatory Body under the Rules of Racing shall be taken into account determining any charges made by it under section 40. I want to add: "The funds referred to in subsection (1) exclude those funds which properly belong to the Turf Club and are under the direct control of the Trustees of the Truf Club." The only reason the Minister gave for not accepting the amendment on Committee Stage was that it was superfluous. However, the legal advice available to those who have concerns in this area is that it is not superfluous, that the wording could be ambiguous if it were open to legal interpretation or judicial review of some kind. It is to put the interpretation beyond doubt that I ask the Minister to accept my amendment. If my amendment is nothing more than superfluous I cannot understand why he will not accept it. It is not just my own experience I bring to bear on this because that is limited. My request that the Minister accepts my amendment is based on legal advice.
There has been a great deal of consultation about this matter. My amendment was put down in the most helpful way to clarify this matter with the agreement of the body concerned. Deputy Doyle's amendment proposes the insertion of a specific statement to the effect that the revenue from the management of funds which the regulatory body must take into account when determining its charges and which is referred to in section 41 does not include funds which properly belong to the Turf Club and are under the direct control of the trustee of the Turf Club. This is unnecessary as section 41(1) as amended on Committee Stage, is clear about what funds are to be taken into account. As I promised, I checked this matter, and I am advised by the Office of the Attorney General——
The Attorney General has been wrong before.
——that there is no doubt that all other funds, such as the private funds of the Turf Club, are excluded. It would be a duplication in drafting terms to include a full list of any funds which are not included. I must, therefore, oppose amendment No. 21. I went to the trouble of tabling my own amendment to make it clear, in agreement with the Turf Club, that their private funds were excluded. That is abundantly clear here.
I made the point made to me by the legal representatives of the interested parties.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 22, line 21, after "manner." to insert the following:
"This procedure shall be based on a tribunal which shall be presided over by a chairman who shall be independent of the Racing Regulatory Body, and of which a majority of the members shall also be independent of that Body.".
This is an amendment to section 45 which deals with appeals against sanctions to the Racing Regulatory Body. I rehearsed my argument on the previous amendment dealing with charges levied by the Racing Regulatory Body. The same arguments on natural justice apply. Some sections of the racing industry have strong views on this matter. Those who believe passionately that there should be an appeals system have gone to much trouble to express their views and those views should be aired. We should be very clear as to the reason the Minister will not accept my amendment and that of other Members on an appeals system or independent tribunal to hear appeals against sanctions of the Racing Regulatory Body.
Is the Minister satisfied beyond doubt that the Racing Regulatory Body can be judge and jury on appeals against sanctions levied by it? Is it possible to hear an appeal on an issue that has been already determined by the same person? It would be very difficult for the racing regulatory body to make a liar of itself by overturning its first decision, which is effectively what we are asking it to do. I do not hold very strong views on either side of this argument, but I accept that virtually all the expertise, legal and otherwise, that is available to the horseracing industry is already cornered by the Turf Club. I am not sure where one would find a totally independent tribunal, staffed by people who are not already members of or connected with the Turf Club and who would have a similar level of experience and expertise. That aspect has never been clarified by those who believe strongly that an independent appeals procedure is necessary.
There is a case to be made for natural justice. There are very prominent people in the industry who feel aggrieved by decisions of the Turf Club in recent years. One or two have taken their case to the courts who upheld the decision of the Turf Club. Natural justice appears to have been done in those cases, but not everyone has the means or the wherewithal to take the Turf Club to court — the courts cannot give a judicial review of Turf Club decisions. This is an issue about which we need to be clear. If the Minister does not accept the call from the sections of the industry that believe we need an independent review of appeals, he should put on record the reasons for not doing so.
I support my colleague in her very strong and reasonable request to the Minister to initiate an appeals procedure. The Minister is a very reasonable man, but I cannot comprehend why he is opposing this most reasonable request from a person who has very good knowledge of the horseracing and horse breeding industry. Is there any facet of Irish life where a person does not have the right to appeal to an independent body? I regard it as absolutely essential for the success of the new racing body that people have that right.
Deputy Doyle suggested that people with knowledge of the horseracing industry who are not currently members of the Turf Club but perhaps have served on the Turf Club be appointed to an appeals committee. There is no doubt, given the composition of racing, that cases will be appealed in future years. What recourse will a person have in that instance? Will they have to go to court, with all the associated costs? That may be beyond the purse strings of a small owner who feels deeply affronted. We witnessed the case in England some years ago of probably the richest racehorse owner in the world, the Aga Khan, who was so affronted by a decision of the English stewards that he withdrew his horses from the English racing scene. That created a great void in English racing and affected three or four prominent English trainers such as Luka Cumani and Michael Stoute. Ireland was the beneficiary as the Aga Khan moved his horses to the John Oxx stable.
If the same thing happened here, would we deny the Aga Khan an appeals structure? I mention him because he is the most famous personage in racing and his case caused the biggest furore in English racing in recent years. He moved more than 100 horses out of England and has not returned to English racing despite the fact that one of his horses, Mantari, was backed to win this year's English 2000 Guineas race. Can that happen here? Can we afford to lose a man who has contributed and will contribute much to Irish racing in future years? Natural justice demands that an appeals procedure be initiated and I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance to accept this proposal.
I would not be too sure about Mantari winning the English 2000 Guineas.
Somebody was sure and somebody backed it.
Amendment No. 23 proposes the establishment of 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. I would like to put on the record again that I have spent considerable time discussing with the industry this whole Bill. In my time in the House I do not know of any case where an industry was so widely consulted. Now that we are moving to the starting tape I do not want a repeat of what happened at Aintree. This is a diverse industry and it is not easy to get agreement on all matters. No doubt some people are not as fully in agreement as others but there is general consensus that something needs to be done and we are making worthwhile progress in this Bill. I am sure it is everybody's wish that we get it right — I certainly hope so.
The Turf Club has updated its procedures and I have confidence it will continue to provide an appeals system which will be fair and reasonable and will adequately protect the integrity of horseracing, as it is generally accepted it has done for two centuries. Under section 45 (2) that body will be obliged to consider appeals in a fair and impartial manner. As was apparent from Deputies' contributions, in setting up an appeals procedure outside the regulatory body there is a danger that it would be difficult to find as much expertise as there is in the Turf Club and that technical matters would be heard by people who do not know the business. The expertise in this area resides in the Turf Club——
We should put Charlie Haughey on the board.
——and this section requires it to provide an appeals procedure which is absolutely above board and is fair and impartial. If it fails in this regard the people affected will have redress to the courts through a judicial review. for those reasons I oppose the amendment.
The Minister's response does not surprise me but I am amused by his á la carte references to consultations with Moriarty and the industry. The Minister took on board the aspects of the industry's submission that suited him but ignored what did not. He has tried to create the impression that he has engaged in wide consultation with the industry in formulating sections of the Bill implying that there is agreement in regard to what he is trying to do. However, in case he has not heard or read reports in the racing press there are major concerns about aspects of this Bill.
This amendment deals with just one area, setting up a system of independent appeals against sanctions of the Racing Regulatory Board. The industry is divided on how these appeals should be dealt with. To be fair, most of the representations I received were to make the Turf Club a little more democratic, to update its procedures, making them more transparent, but leaving the question of sanctions, disciplinary system and integrity of services with the Turf Club, but some representations by very well known names in the racing industry, jockeys and trainers primarily, held strongly different views. Some were part of the group feeding information into the triumvirate coming in over the head of the Moriarty committee with the result that little bits of the Bill were changed as it progressed. The Minister blames the Attorney General but we know others have the Minister's ear. Some very high profile members of the industry held very strong views that there should be an independent procedure. I accepted there are arguments for and against it, but generally speaking over 200 years the Turf Club has voluntarily done an excellent job. Irish racing would not be where it is today except for the input of the Turf Club over the years. That does not mean there is not room for improvement and greater transparency in many of the Turf Club's procedures, but I have every confidence that with the system in place under the new chief steward things will change and that will get the same excellent voluntary service from the Truf Club we have always got.
The Minister is effectively saying we will continue the present system. Reluctantly, I have to accept his view, but let me make it clear that it is not held unanimously throughout the industry. Some very high profile people hold very strongly that a third party or independent appeals system is needed over and above the Racing Regulatory Body.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 24 is an alternative to amendment No. 25. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are related, amendment No. 36 is an alternative to amendment No. 37 and, therefore, it is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 24, 25, 36, 37 and 38 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 23, line 1, after "may" to insert "request the Garda Síochána to".
I thank the Minister for taking the substance of my amendment on board. Section 47 deals with the prohibition of course-betting by bookmakers not holding permits from the Authority and the authority of authorised officers to remove unauthorised bookmakers or such persons from racecourses. Yesterday, I made the point that if someone is being removed from a racecourse by force, the Garda Síochána should be involved. Amendment No. 25, in the Minister's name, effectively takes on board the points made by Deputy Dukes and me. Therefore, I will withdraw amendment No. 24.
Similarly, amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 deal with exactly the same point in section 62 which deals with the exclusion of certain undesirable persons from racecourses — Deputy McGahon may have something to say about that, as he referred to it on Committee Stage. Under the provisions of this section racecourse personnel have power to remove undesirable persons but amendment No. 36 provides for members of the Garda Síochána to assist if it is considered necessary and furthermore the reference to force is amended to "reasonable force", if necessary. I will withdraw the amendments in my name. As the Minister has effectively taken on board the case we made on these issues, for which I thank him, I accept his amendments.
I have no difficulty with this requirement. Every sporting organisation must have the right to remove people whom it deems to be undesirable. The Garda Síochána are always present at race meetings and will be able to assist, if necessary, when a person is requested to leave. I want to back Scenic Dancer in the ladies' race at Ripon today, I am not going to Royal Ascot.
People in the racing industry regard the question of undesirables very seriously. Race gangs in England have been involved in significant doping operations in recent years. Such people are clearly identifiable by the Irish racing authorities who must have the right to exclude them from Irish race tracks. The dangers of doping to the punter, the jockey and all concerned are very sinister and should be given absolute priority by the racing authorities. I know they do that and that is why I support any provision to exclude undesirables from race tracks, particularly those with a track record of doping horses.
An exclusion notice under section 62 will apply to people who may interfere with horses or a person causing a problem at a racecourse so it meets the concerns expressed by Deputy McGahon.
I promised, on Committee Stage, to give consideration to bringing forward appropriate amendments on Report Stage. Deputies in their amendments were seeking to transfer from authorised officers and racecourse executives to the Garda the power to remove, by force if necessary, people from racecourses who were carrying on the business of bookmaking without a permit or who were the subject of an exclusion notice under section 62, such as those mentioned by Deputy McGahon. As I said on Committee Stage, I am not in favour of involving the Garda Síochána in every case. If someone is creating a nuisance he will be asked to leave and it may not be necessary to use the Garda in every case. However, I concede there might be occasions when one may have to call the Garda and its support would be useful and appropriate.
The situations that might arise are, of their nature, very different in each case and, therefore, I leave it to the authorised officers and the racecourse executives to decide when it would be appropriate to call for the assistance of the Garda Síochána. After all, we have trusted these officers and executives with powers to remove persons from racecourses since 1946.
In the case of the amendment to section 47, as there is no exclusion notice involved I felt it would be appropriate that the person found bookmaking without a permit should first be asked to leave the racecourse, in other words, given the yellow card and if the person does not comply with the request, the refusal to do so should be regarded as an offence. On that basis, I propose also to add the new subsection (3) of section 47 to the list of summary offences in section 6, under amendment No. 1, a technical amendment to which I referred earlier.
In this group of amendments I am supporting amendments Nos. 25, 36 and 38 and opposing amendments Nos. 24 and 37.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.