Amendments Nos. 1 and 51 are grouped and will be discussed together.
Horse Racing Ireland Bill 2015: Report and Final Stages
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 6, after “1993,” to insert “Veterinary Practice Act 2005,”.
I just spoke about this amendment, which is grouped with amendment No. 51.
Does the Minister wish to make a further contribution?
No. I have made my contribution and do not want to take up the time of the House. It is a non-controversial issue.
We accept it.
It is non-controversial.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendment No. 2 is ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment No. 3 arises out of committee proceedings.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, lines 10 and 11, to delete “in relation to integrity services” and substitute “under this Act”.
I am making a small technical amendment at the request of the racing regulatory body. I have changed this section for the avoidance of any doubt as to the intention here. If the racing regulatory body wishes to establish a limited company for the exercise of any of its functions provided for in this Act, it should be permitted to do so. I would also not like the legislation to unintentionally prevent such a development. This revision better reflects this intention and, although he is not here, it is also consistent with the amendment proposed by Deputy Ó Cuív.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
Amendment No. 6, which arises out of committee proceedings, will be discussed with amendment No. 7.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, line 25, to delete “3 shall” and substitute “5 shall”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, to delete lines 3 to 5 and substitute the following:
“(h) one shall be chosen by the Minister for their specific skill and competencies and be representative of the horseracing industry in Northern Ireland.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 20, inclusive and amendment No. 31 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, line 40, to delete “administration, governance,” and substitute the following:
“administration and governance (other than the administration and governance of point-to-point racing),”.
I wish to speak to amendment No. 31 as all of the others are linked to it. As I indicated on Committee Stage, I was not convinced that the wording of this provision reflected the new arrangements. The racing regulatory body in the form of the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee will continue to provide the integrity services for point-to-point races and the hunt clubs will continue to organise and run meetings, while Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, will continue to support point-to-point racing financially. We had a long discussion on this and both Deputy Ferris and Deputy Penrose were very interested in it.
I wish to emphasise again on the floor of the House that we are not changing point-to-point racing in Ireland. The races are still being run by local hunt clubs. The role of local hunt clubs remains the same. The national steeplechase committee still provides the administration. The only thing that is changing is that we are following the advice we got from independent reports on streamlining services to provide better value for money. We are ensuring that when hunters are registered, the registration payment goes through a central office run by HRI and that money goes back into the Turf Club or steeplechase committee automatically. We have protections to make sure the money is paid without undue delay. Everything else in respect of point-to-point racing remains as it is today. It works very well. Point-to-point racing in Ireland is vibrant with many volunteers and we do not want to upset that or change the way it operates. We do want to respond to the recommendations on streamlining and are trying to ensure that we have one portal through which payments come in and go out. We can get efficiencies through that new process, which is one of the purposes of the Bill.
We had a long debate on this on Committee Stage and it was also discussed at a pre-legislative stage. I have also had discussions both on and off the record with a number of Deputies to try to reassure them on this. Following our conversation on Committee Stage, amendment No. 31 proposes to delete "to maintain the existing nature of point-to-point steeplechases" and to insert "to administer and control the integrity of point-to-point steeplechases". We are being more definitive in terms of the role of the National Hunt Steeplechase Committee and the local turf clubs, for the avoidance of any concern or doubt.
I fundamentally disagree with the Minister and believe he has reneged on a commitment he gave to me very clearly on Committee Stage. He said that the role of the local hunt club will remain the same and that the only change is to the office to which the cheques are sent, which will be a central administrative office. This is what he said on Committee Stage:
Rather than having two offices, one operated by the Turf Club and a second one operated by Horse Racing Ireland, which are located within a few hundred metres of each other, we are seeking to introduce one administrative function. That is the only change. Everything else remains the same ... We propose to change that to state: “to maintain the existing nature of point-to-point steeplechases including making and enforcing the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Regulations for point-to-point steeplechase as made by the Stewards of the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee.” We are trying to reinforce the point that this is the committee which sets the regulations and controls the sector.
The amendments proposed by Deputy Ferris and I provide for administration and governance of point-to-point racing. However, point-to-point racing has never been included in legislation.
I have a number of concerns about this Report Stage and I want to make it very clear early on that I am not going to be a Patsy. As far as I am concerned, the Minister gave a very strong commitment and it is not being honoured. Wherever this amendment came out of, it has jumped out of the ground and I am not accepting it. It is not consistent with what was said to me on Committee Stage. I accepted the Minister's bona fides then but the provision is now not there. This is where I caused a row on Second Stage. This is not unknown as anyone who has heard me will know my concerns.
This is an amateur sport. Similar to all other amateur sports across the country, it is run predominantly on a voluntary basis by local hunts. The hunts are supporting the role played by the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase, INHS, committees. I know this. I was even with them last week.
We are not changing their role.
The Minister is taking away from them. He is not changing anything. He is only taking away; that is all. The State has never had any involvement in point-to-point racing. It is not mentioned in any legislation. It was not included in Indecon's terms of reference or report. It made no recommendation on point-to-point racing. Let us be clear and not start fool-acting.
The Minister said before that his rationale for including point-to-point racing in legislation was to get transparency in view of the fact that the sport is supported with a €1.5 million fund annually. Fair enough, we are fully with the Minister there. He is entitled to that. However, many other sports receive funding well in excess of €1.5 million - I can tell the Minister that - and there is no requirement for them to be included in legislation. They do not mandatorily have to register with a State body.
On Committee Stage the Minister put forward an amendment to maintain the existing nature of point-to-point steeplechase and he explained that this was trying to reinforce the point that this is a committee which sets the regulations for the whole sector. That is a perfectly acceptable amendment. I was happy with that and indeed it was accepted by the INHS committee. Everybody was on board. However, the Bill before us today has further amended and delimited the INHS committee’s rights in this area, only allowing the committee to administer and control integrity. That is all they are getting.
If I did not know the Minister I would say it was sleight of hand. In one fell swoop he is taking away the right that the INHS committees have had for well over 100 years to govern and administer the sport. There is a difference. I understand this.
Administration is-----
It is not. When one includes something specifically, that excludes everything else. That is the basic rule of legal interpretation. I understand that and I am well informed on this. This matter is going to end up in the courts. It is taking away rights and there is no need to take them away. If the Minister had stuck to what he said on Committee Stage, it would be game, set and match to him. He had taken the wind out of our sails and I am sure Deputy Ferris had to sit down and accept what he said. I accepted the bona fides here and was shocked when this amendment No. 31 was introduced. If we got this straightened out I think the rest of the evening could be easy, but this matter is critical.
I cannot understand where this is coming from. As far as I am concerned, the INHS has always done well and continues to do well for what is right in the sport. I do not believe this amendment serves the best interests of the sport and, constitutionally, what is being put forward in this section will be challenged if the wording remains unchanged. It is my job to scrutinise it here as best I can in the dying weeks of this Administration. No-one knows whether I will be back or not. So be it. If I am not back someone else will look at this and I may well be looking at it in another forum.
If I was given a choice tomorrow on behalf of this group, I would strongly advise legal action. That is my strong legal opinion and it is shared by far more eminent people than I. Some of my colleagues know some of those who share this view. There is no need for this amendment. I urge the Minister to back down and to leave out the reference to integrity.
Leave out the word "integrity" and we are in business. When the governance and administration is taken away, there is nothing. The clothes will be taken off the emperor; he will be naked.
I am deeply concerned about this and I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on how this will end up. Although I was ill for a few days and was not in the best of form, I believe the Minister has been fully put on notice about the importance of this section. Some of my colleagues may have more to say about it than me but I am certainly not happy about it. I urge the Minister to go back to the drawing board. He has a chance to sort this out in the Seanad, if all goes to all. I am not happy with it and want to reflect that very clearly and unambiguously.
What is the Deputy looking for?
I am looking for the Minister to remove the word "integrity" and accept the amendment.
Which amendment?
Either amendment No. 8 or No. 9. That would solve the problem. He can accept either Deputy Ferris's amendment or mine.
I want to concur with everything Deputy Penrose has said, although I would not say it as eloquently or legalistically as he has. What he has said was my understanding of this from the Committee Stage meeting and it is in the minutes of that meeting. There is a chance here. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 8 or amendment No. 9, then amendment No. 31 falls. It is as simple as that.
I understand the Deputies are attempting to deal with point-to-point racing and the role of the national steeplechase committee. This section is dealing with the functions of HRI, which is a State body. In my view, it is not appropriate to deal with the role of a private body within the functions of a State body, which is why we have dealt with the issue that is being raised here in the amendment I have proposed, which is amendment No. 31.
Let us not forget there is nothing in the legislation at the moment in regard to point-to-point racing for the national steeplechase committee or the Turf Club. The Deputy himself said it is not in the legislation as it is an amateur sport. On the one hand, the Deputy said that by putting words in, we are excluding other roles. There are no exclusions here. All we are doing, for the purposes of being helpful, is clarifying that to administer and control the integrity of point-to-point steeplechases is the role of the regulatory body. It is self-evident that all of the other things that are currently there in terms of the management and running of those point-to-points remains as is. There is no hidden risk here, or anything like that.
The Deputy is making a big issue out of something. He asked that we hold on to the administration of the sport. That is exactly what we are doing - putting it in legislation that it would administer and control the integrity of point-to-point racing.
Then accept the amendment and there is no problem.
The Deputy can come back in. Allow the Minister to finish.
I certainly will. I am not taking that.
I cannot change my amendment but, if the Deputy prefers, I am advised we can revert to the Committee Stage wording, which is to maintain the status quo. Our advice and our view is that the wording in amendment No. 31 strengthens the legal clarity around protections for the Turf Club, the national steeplechase committee and local hunt clubs in terms of any misunderstanding there may be around the role of HRI.
Thank you, Minister. You can come back in later.
To finish the point, if it is helpful to Deputies in terms of their concerns, we can leave the words, which we also put in to try to be helpful, as they were on Committee Stage, namely, “to maintain the existing nature of point-to-point steeplechases”. They can have that if they prefer. Otherwise, we can put in what we regard as strengthening the position of the national steeplechase committee, following the conversation we had on Committee Stage, namely, “to administer and control the integrity of point-to-point steeplechases”. In other words, they would administer it, control it and run it, and run the integrity services.
Thank you, Minister.
It is also not true to say that HRI has nothing to do with point-to-points; it does.
I am not saying that.
The Deputy did say that earlier.
I did not say that.
HRI provides prize money for point-to-points. Let us be accurate.
Let him be accurate.
What I am saying is-----
I would like to allow Deputy Penrose in to speak. The Minister can come back when the Deputy is finished and he will have an unlimited amount of time.
That is fine. I have given a choice here, to try to be helpful.
We indicated this on Committee Stage, as far as I can recall. I will have to look into the matter because I am not going to allow somebody to say I accepted something I did not. I have a record of what the Minister said, and that is the important thing. There was no need for the Minister to bring this forward. Where did this come out of?
I am giving the Deputy the option, if he wants it.
There was no need. The option for us is simple, namely, to delete what the Minister had inserted and substitute “administration and governance (other than the administration and governance of point-to-point racing)". That is all we asked for. There is no big deal in that, from the Minister's perspective, but it is important for the point-to-points, the INHS and everybody else.
There is an old dictum. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". There was never a problem with the point-to-points. Indecon did not even make one recommendation on point-to-points and, by God, it got plenty of money to make sure it looked at everything. As far as I am concerned, it is a big grab. Out of the 30-odd proposals from Indecon, one was that we have a value-for-money review of HRI but, three and a half years later, we have heard nothing about that. Maybe that is one of the recommendations the Minister should be looking at, rather than trying to pin point-to-points down to the ground.
I do not want to be argumentative but when I believe in something, I go the extra yard to see that right is right. I will give way to Deputy Ferris' amendment because I do not care whose name is on it if it is for the betterment of this. We should go back and look at this, even in the Seanad debate, to see whether we can rectify this. The Bill has to go to the Seanad and we would all be agreeable if we could sort it out there.
Does the Minister wish to respond?
We can go through the individual amendments. Let me be clear on this because I do not want a rewriting of the debate we have had. We had a pre-legislative stage where no big issue was raised in this regard and no recommendations to change this came from the committee, of which the Deputies are members. We had a very long discussion of this on Committee Stage. The Deputies know my position on it. We are not changing, interrupting or undermining point-to-point racing in Ireland and we are certainly not facilitating the kind of power grab Deputy Penrose seems to be advocating is happening. It is not happening.
We are trying to do what is reasonable and accurate from a legal perspective. I am happy to go back to the wording we had on Committee Stage, which everybody felt was a reasonably balanced wording, from what I remember, if that is what Members prefer. However, we thought amendment No. 31 added to the clarity being provided for the national steeplechase committee in terms of its role in administration of point-to-points, along with local hunt clubs, and in terms of its responsibility for the integrity services. Now Deputy Penrose says he wants the word "governance" in there as well. I am sorry but this refers to administering in terms of running the point-to-points.
How many belts and braces do we need to have? We have an accurate wording that is approved by the Parliamentary Counsel in terms of the legalities. That is consistent with the points I made on Committee Stage, which are consistent with the points Deputy Penrose made then. We could have left the existing wording, which everybody seemed to be reasonably happy with. However, I said I would see if we could strengthen it. We have come back with a proposal to strengthen it, in line with the views and concerns expressed.
The Deputy is responding as if I am trying to change the goalposts, but I am not. There is no attempt being made to change the way in which point-to-point races are run in Ireland. This is consistent with the wording in the legislation, on which we asked the Parliamentary Counsel to provide clarity.
If we are wrong, why are the people involved in the committees indicating this provision should be removed because it only allows the Minister to control the integrity of point-to-point race meetings? This is a serious issue for them. Why do they believe their right to govern and administer the sport which they have had for over 100 years is being affected? If we are wrong, why do they believe this is the case? There have been numerous communications between them and the Minister and, as far as they are concerned, the legislation delimits their rights in these areas and only allows the Minister to administer and control the integrity of point-to-point race meetings. It is for that reason our amendment seeks to delete the word "governance" and substitute "(other than the administration of point-to-point racing)". I know that the Minister is very quick, sharp and perceptive, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he is so doggedly opposed to accepting even one of our amendments. I would not care which one he accepted.
I have made a lot of compromises in response to concerns raised by various stakeholders in the horse racing industry, including the Turf Club. I will accept some of the amendments tabled, which I suspect will be strongly welcomed by that body. I am not going to be told how to write legislation by anybody. We have spent over one year in putting this legislation together and taken legal advice on the wording used and approach adopted. This section relates to the general functions of Horse Racing Ireland. It reads:
(a) to provide for the overall administration, governance, development and promotion of the Irish horseracing industry, other than functions assigned to the Racing Regulatory Body under section 39(1), including promoting and increasing attendance at authorised racecourses.
However, when it comes to point-to-point race meetings, the other functions assigned to the Racing Regulatory Body concern the administration and provision of integrity services. Therefore, it is clear we are not changing anything.
I am happy to accept amendments and make changes when a valid case is made and we need to respond to it. However, we have already made changes in this area to reassure people, but I am not going to continue to make change after change when the advice is that the Bill reflects the position we want to reach in terms of legal accuracy. The legislation makes it clear that the position on point-to-point race meetings will not change. The only change is that when people register their hunters, they will send their cheque to a central administrative office run by HRI which will then channel the money to where it would have gone. That is all that is happening. I am not being defensive for the sake of it. We have changed the wording to try to add to what was already included. On Committee Stage it was felt it was not unreasonable to do this to try to strengthen the Bill further. I am happy to withdraw my amendment, amendment No. 31, if the Deputy would prefer to see what we brought forward on Committee Stage, but what we now propose will provide more certainty and protection.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 40, to delete “, governance” and substitute “(other than the administration of point-to-point racing)”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 9, line 1, to delete “functions assigned to the Racing Regulatory Body under” and substitute “the functions of the Racing Regulatory Body set out in”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, to delete lines 4 and 5.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, line 8, to delete “including the collection of licence fees” and substitute the following:
“other than the collection of fees for licences and financial sanctions imposed by the Racing Regulatory Body,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, line 11, after “industry,” to insert “including charges in respect of the registration of hunter certificates”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, line 11, to delete “other than”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, line 11, to delete “issuing” and substitute “certifying”.
May I just -----
There can be no further discussion as the amendments were discussed as a group.
On a point of information, this is just one of a number of examples where we have tried to work with Members to improve the legislation. We have not been shy in accepting amendments when they make sense.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 9, line 16, after “services” to insert “in accordance with the Rules of Racing”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, lines 18 to 20, to delete all words from and including “and” in line 18 down to and including “certificates” in line 20.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, line 19, to delete “including the” and substitute “excluding the issuing and”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 10, line 34, after “issuing” to insert “or amending”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 10, line 36, after “make” to insert “or amend”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 25, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, line 34, to delete “shall not be” and substitute “shall be”.
On amendment No. 21, the legislation ensures all interests of the horse racing industry will be represented on the board of HRI. As setting horse racing fixtures is one of the primary functions of HRI and final decisions in this regard need to be ratified by the board, I am seeking to ensure consensus. I cannot accept the amendment as it would undermine the inclusivity I seek to achieve for the sport of horse racing in Ireland.
The structure proposes that there is a standard governance arrangement involving recommendations from a sub-board being made to the main board for final decision. Any other arrangements would subvert the functions of the main board, which is carefully structured to ensure a balance of representation and public interest.
We had a fairly long discussion on this on Committee Stage when we debated whether the main board of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, would make the final decisions, as opposed to a sub-board requiring a certain decision. The sub-board is set up by the main board and this is a standard governance procedure. We had a good discussion on it and although the Deputy has tabled the amendment, my position is valid. We made that clear on Committee Stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 12, line 9, to delete "HRI shall determine" and substitute "The relevant industry representative bodies should determine".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 12, line 9, after "shall" to insert ", having consulted with the industry services sector,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 12, line 39, to delete "HRI shall" and substitute the following:
"The relevant industry bodies representative of bookmakers shall".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 12, line 39, after "shall" to insert ", having consulted with the betting sector,".
This is self-explanatory and follows our previous conversation.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 is in the name of Deputies Ó Cuív and Mathews and amendment No. 27 is a physical alternative. The amendments will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 13, line 29, after "HRI" to insert the following:
"one of whom shall be the HRI representative of the body known as the Irish Racehorse Owners Association".
This is simple enough. Subsection (2) proposes that "Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the media rights committee shall consist of not more than 5 members appointed by HRI and may include members who are not members of HRI.". Basically, Opposition Deputies are proposing that one of the people proposed shall be the HRI representative of the body known as the Irish Racehorse Owners Association. There seems to be some conflict about the official name as either Deputy Ferris or I have got it wrong. The idea is that as the owners are fundamental to the sport, they should be on the media rights committee. That is the basic proposal being made and it is valid. Whatever the proper name of the association, will the Minister accept the appropriate amendment so we can move on?
I support Deputy Ó Cuív's comments. The Minister is aware that the media rights money is paid to racecourses on the back of owners' data. That is the information relating to who owns the horse, the owner of the colours and the name of the horse. The owners' data are used to generate the media rights funding; it makes sense that without the owners' horse, name and colours, there would be no product to sell and yet there is no member from the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners, which represents every member of the association, on the media rights committee established by the HRI. It is a missing piece in an otherwise clear jigsaw and it should be specifically inserted.
As both amendments are practically the same, I will be withdrawing mine in favour of the amendment tabled by Deputies Ó Cuív and Mathews.
One of us has the wrong name. Deputy Mathews is more into horse racing than I would be. Have we got the name right or has Deputy Ferris got it right? The Minister might be able to inform us.
It can be clarified.
I will hold on for a second just in case the amendment is required.
I will not ask for the amendment to be withdrawn before we address it specifically.
I will respond to this as it is not the right thing to do. I accept what people are saying and I have been around the horse racing industry long enough now to know the importance of owners, who pay for everything, basically. They train horses and make a major contribution to prize money; they have an extraordinary commitment to the sport. Racehorse owners are on the board and that board ratifies the deals and puts the media rights body together. In all likelihood, there will be an owner on the media rights negotiating committee.
A representative of the owners.
I am not in favour of giving any particular representative organisation rights where many other representative organisations claim an equal interest. There are already well-established arrangements that are working well. The current media rights negotiation process works reasonably well and most people are quite happy with it. We had a long debate on Committee Stage about trying to maintain the current arrangements in terms of getting the best deal possible for media rights. It is in the interests of racehorse owners and everybody else in racing that there is a team of people who know what they are doing, are experienced and understand the industry so that they can get the best deals possible around media rights. It is the broader board in HRI that ratifies the deal. It must consult with racecourses and finalise the deal. The main board makes the final decisions. The sub-board for media rights negotiates in order to get the best possible deal. The body that finalises the ratifying of media rights is HRI. There is a guaranteed place for horse owners on HRI.
The Deputy makes valid points on the ratifying and finalising of deals in the best interests of the sport. Owners are fundamentally important in this. If we start prescribing the bodies that must contribute to a five person committee which brings back proposals to be ratified by HRI, we would limit the options in putting a balanced skill set in place. HRI must make decisions arising from that work. I understand the points being made and, more than most, I know the importance of owners. Without owners, there is nothing but owners would want to ensure that the media rights committee is made up of five of the most able people possible so as to get the best deals for media rights. That sub-board comes back to the HRI board for ratification and the owners are represented there. That structure makes sense and we are providing for it. It is the current structure and everybody seems to be reasonably happy with the current media rights deals.
The racehorse owners are absolutely integral to the industry. I hope the racehorse owner would never put somebody on the board of HRI who would be less than capable. If we made it a provision that racehorse owners would automatically have somebody on the media rights board, it would be guaranteed that an absolutely excellent person would be on the media rights committee. The Minister's argument falls in that respect. He stated that he must pick the best people.
I do not pick them. The HRI board picks them.
Yes. I hope that racehorse owners, who have such an amount to lose by not putting absolutely excellent people on the HRI board, would never allow a situation where somebody who was on the board of HRI was not excellent in every way.
Therefore, I do not see that one is imposing less than excellence by saying that there must a representative of the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners on the media rights committee.
The Minister probably knows by this stage because he is five years in the job that we are all going for a cold shower in the next few weeks. When I was a Minister, I often used to say that the executive officer who gets the file has a great deal of power because I often noticed that files that started at the bottom tend to get passed to the top. For that reason, to say that HRI can overturn the decisions of the media rights committee is technically true. To say that this would probably be the exception rather than the rule would also be technically true. About 90% of the time, most committees would find themselves nodded through at the more senior board unless something very bad was done. Therefore, the real powerhouse in the negotiations here is not HRI but the media rights committee. Anybody who was ever on committees with sub-committees would know this is the way the world really works on a day-to-day basis. As I have often said, the person who starts the file and proposal and agrees at the lowest level has a huge amount of power. Regardless of the shape they put it in, it has a big effect on what happens down the line. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister accepts the amendment. I do not think it is a lot to ask for.
The Minister has been very good. I want to recognise that before I came in here, he came up with a similar amendment to the one I put down and I welcome that. I noticed that another one is coming up. I might have had arguments with him on many points but one thing I would say about him as a Minister is that he has been excellent in fully engaging in the legislative process with the Opposition. He has been more than willing to accept amendments and has gone through the process in a very iterative fashion. I will always grant that he makes the Oireachtas function properly from a legislative point of view. We have this week and next week left so perhaps he will accept this amendment.
I wish to take up the baton Deputy Ó Cuív has extended to me and also compliment the Minister on the professionalism he has applied to the legislative process and to explaining and presenting his legislation.
The point that was made was that the media rights committee with its five members would be a lesser body without a member from the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners. As Deputy Ó Cuív noted, these people will ensure that they have the best listening ear, the best contacts and the best touch in respect of media rights and the interests of all. Even if the sub-committee was to be overseen or appraised by HRI, it is not the same thing. One needs close quarter to get the best. One will also see the operation of the other four members and whether they are up to scratch. There is a mutual auditing function in having a member of the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners. We would fall short of the excellence that would be achieved if we did not include a member from the association. The Minister said he understood the reasons that were put forward. If he understands them, he should not hesitate to carry the baton and put it into the legislation. There is nothing to be afraid of.
I do not want to dwell on it. I support what both Deputies have said. Having a representative on the board from people who have a very strong interest in its success will only make things better. It is only right and proper that there should be a mandatory position on the board for them.
I have had conversations with various people on this amendment. The media rights committee works largely through consensus. There are no division or votes on this committee.
Look what happened in the banking industry.
The core of the question we must answer here is whether we or the board of HRI are better placed to determine who are the people on the five-person committee to negotiate media rights on behalf of HRI. We spent a long time looking and taking recommendations on this issue. The board of HRI is very balanced and all of the stakeholders in the racing industry, including racehorse owners, are effectively represented on it. As a result, there is a balanced representation of the industry and the State on HRI. It decides who are the best five people to negotiate media rights. They can be members of the board or not in terms of whoever it chooses as the best team. They then come back to report to HRI. Section 6(3)(b) states that "a contract or arrangement referred to in subsection (1) shall not be made by the media rights committee without the agreement of the board of HRI and representatives of executives of authorised racecourses." There is a process here that is working and with which people are reasonably happy. Racehorse owners are not asking me to make this amendment.
We did.
I have not been asked by racehorse owners. There was no strong call in that regard. My only objective here, which we are following through, is to make sure that HRI, on behalf of the State because this is its legal function, actually puts together the best team possible to get the best financial return from the media rights deals that are available. It then has obligations in terms of how it spends that money. I want to trust the board, some members of which I or a future Minister will appoint, to use its judgment to put together a team of five people who can then bring contracts and proposals back for approval to the overall board, which will have racehorse owners represented on it. We will proceed on that basis. The current structure and system between the media rights group and the board of HRI is a reasonably good one and we are looking at continuing that and protecting it in legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 14, to delete lines 6 to 9 and substitute the following:
"(2) HRI shall not alter a directive referred to in subsection (1) affecting trusts or charitable funds extant on the commencement of section 7 of the Horse Racing Ireland Act 2016, however so administered without the agreement of the person administering the trust or the fund.".".
I am proposing this amendment to give assurances to a trust fund for the benefit of jockeys that is not administered by the racing regulatory authority. It had feared that it could have been adversely affected by a change in HRI directives. This is not my intention and I am happy to clarify that existing arrangements will not change without the prior agreement of the body or person concerned. This is a legal amendment to make sure that if there is a trust fund linked to prize money that is there for the benefit of jockeys in this case, their position will not change as a result of anything in this legislation.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 16, line 5, to delete "to maintain the existing nature of point-to-point steeplechases" and substitute "to administer and control the integrity of point-to-point steeplechases,".
Can I just say-----
We have already discussed this amendment with amendments Nos. 8 to 20, inclusive.
For the purpose of clarity, I have made an offer to the Opposition as regards which option it would prefer.
The original would be better than this one.
If that is what the Deputy prefers, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I do not have a strong view on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 16, line 13, after “HRI” to insert “acting as collection agent”.
This Bill has been carefully crafted to set out clearly the roles of HRI and the Racing Regulatory Body. This amendment would upset that balance. HRI is not an agent of the Racing Regulatory Body but has clear legal functions under this legislation. In the circumstances I do not think it would be helpful to accept the proposed amendment.
I know what the Deputy is saying in this amendment. It is not inconsistent with the conversation we had on Committee Stage but to put into the legislation that HRI is effectively an agent of the Racing Regulatory Body infers from the point of view of a legal definition something that is not there. I will not accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 16, line 17, to delete “its”.
On Committee Stage we agreed that this provision did not read well. This is a small technical amendment and is consistent with what Deputy Ó Cuív wants to do.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
As amendment No. 32 was withdrawn, we have to discuss amendment No. 36 separately.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 16, line 21, after “subsection (1)” to insert the following:
“after appropriate deductions for the reasonable requirements of the Racing Regulatory Body to ensure it maintains appropriate independent functions and infrastructure”.
We are proposing that out of this money there can be an appropriate deduction for the reasonable requirements of the Racing Regulatory Body. It is self-evident that it is independent in its function and there is a clear funding stream for it. Maybe that is implicit in the Bill.
I will not cross swords with the Minister for the sake of it. As most people say, the Minister listens and gives us a fair hearing, whether we disagree or not. There will be reasonable requirements for the Racing Regulatory Body to effect various deductions and it is important that is not taken into account in allocating its budget. It could be denuded or weakened. The body has served us very well over many years. It is independent in its functions and infrastructure and jealously guards that independence. One can understand that. It works well with HRI. The Racing Regulatory Body is the Turf Club and has been independent of the horse racing industry for more than 200 years. HRI is the body charged with promotion of horse racing in Ireland. It is important that any reasonable deductions that are vouched and verified as requirements of the Racing Regulatory Body would be allowed for to ensure that it remains independent in its function and infrastructure. It is not going to break the bank but this is to ensure that it continues its role and gets the reasonable moneys required. It has never been extravagant in dispensing its functions. I would like the Minister to accept the amendment if at all possible.
I had a conversation with the Racing Regulatory Body on this issue and I want to try to accommodate a subtle flexibility in the legislation. It is to enshrine and protect the role of the Racing Regulatory Body in providing integrity functions and racing but it does more than that. Anybody who understands the Turf Club knows that it does a lot more for racing. It holds receptions, it promotes, markets and enhances the reputation of racing and is extremely committed to that. Most of its members are volunteers.
This section states that HRI shall account for and pay without undue delay or any set off a counter claim or deduction to the Racing Regulatory Body any funds received by it under section 39(1)(d) as a result of its registration. We are talking about what HRI takes account of when it is signing off on a budget for the Racing Regulatory Body in respect of providing integrity services. The wording is not unreasonable. It is not my wording. There are some risks because it has not been approved by Parliamentary Counsel. Some of my advisers are a little uncomfortable with that issue.
From my perspective this adds to the fact that such amounts shall be taken into consideration when determining a budget for integrity services under subsection (1). We will add to that "after appropriate deductions for the reasonable requirements of the Racing Regulatory Body to ensure it maintains appropriate independent functions and infrastructure". In other words the cost of maintaining its independence and infrastructure for delivering the services that it has needs to be taken into account when those decisions are being made by HRI. That is not unreasonable so I will accept it.
I know the problems with wording and the Parliamentary Counsel and I am not saying we have got the wording 100% right. Will this Bill go to the Seanad next week?
Yes.
If it does and if the Parliamentary Counsel want to amend the terminology in the Seanad it can come back here for two minutes and we will put it through, I assure the Minister. With that caveat it will be very good if the Minister accepts it now.
I will accept it today and if there is a fundamental problem we will have to deal with that but I would rather not have to make a lot of amendments in the Seanad because that means it has to come back to the Dáil and we are probably running out of time. For today’s purposes we will accept this amendment and if there is a problem we will have to deal with the consequences.
I thank the Minister because on Committee Stage he proposed that the HRI would have to allow for the costs of the Turf Club and the Irish National Hunt and Steeplechase Committee, INHSC, maintaining an appropriate infrastructure when arriving at an appropriate integrity budget.
That is important and I believe this amendment reflects that in the legislation. Otherwise, let us be honest, the HRI would have an excessive level of control over the independent regulator, which simply means that the racing regulatory body could no longer operate as an independent entity. This guarantees that it will be well set in stone. The amendment is important from that perspective. I think the Minister has seen this himself and I thank him for being constructive in this regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 16, line 27, to delete “the Rule” and substitute “or amend the Rules”.
I am moving this amendment to see what the Minister has to say about it.
I am of the view that this amendment is unnecessary and, as a new rule is required to amend or replace an existing rule, I do not think it changes anything.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 16, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(4) Section 42(2) (as inserted by Section 7 of the Act of 2001) should be replaced with the following:
"(2) If in respect of the level of or costs of integrity services or the provision of information pertaining to the integrity services budget in any particular year, or disputes in relation to legitimate budget overruns and unforeseen costs that the Racing Regulatory Body may need to incur to carry out its functions under this Act, agreement is not reached between HRI and the Racing Regulatory Body:
(a) they may agree to the appointment of one expert or group of persons or consultancy arbitrate on (i) the level of integrity services to be provided for that year bearing in mind that the Racing Regulatory Body is obliged to provide integrity services to the highest possible standard to ensure the Rules of Racing are fully and fairly enforced for the benefit of horse racing and breeding in Ireland and that where possible integrity services recommended by the Racing Regulatory Body in any year shall be fully funded for such purpose and (ii) the cost of that level of integrity services; or
(b) in case they fail to agree to any such appointment to arbitrate on that cost or level, the Minister may appoint a person to so decide and the decision of the expert or group or consultancy shall be final and binding on both parties.
HRI shall not be entitled to withhold from the Racing Regulatory Body any funds which are part of an integrity services budget which has been agreed (or which has been determined by an expert or group of persons or consultancy).”.”.
I spoke at length on this on Committee Stage but the Minister was not for moving on it. He did not want another big amorphous structure set up for arbitration, and he probably has a point. He could not foresee some of the things I foresaw in respect of the level of costs and everything else that is required with independent intervention. I assume the Minister is still of that view and that he will not concede. I have therefore moved the amendment to see if he has changed his mind, although I do not anticipate that he has. However, he might come forward with something even better than this from a drafting viewpoint.
The Deputy is getting to know me well if he is not expecting me to move on this issue. We cannot introduce a whole new section into the Bill at this stage. We can probably delete sections, but we cannot introduce new sections.
I understand that.
It is catered for already, so I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 41 to 43, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 40, therefore, amendments Nos. 40 to 43, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 17, to delete lines 37 to 42, to delete page 18, and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 4.
This amendment is about the sanctions and appeals concerning the rules of racing in section 13. I understand that the Minister has received much representation on this matter from the racing regulatory body which is very exercised over this and I understand HRI may also be exercised over it. I hope therefore that the Minister will look positively at this amendment. This is all about the rules of racing and the investigation process. The racing regulatory body is obliged to operate fair procedures and to adhere to natural justice both as a matter of public law, which as we know can be subject to judicial review, and private law.
In the Supreme Court case that the racing regulatory body won last year, Mr. Justice O'Donnell concluded that the decision of the Turf Club, as the racing regulatory body after 1994, was amenable to judicial review. That decision may have little practical consequence for the Turf Club since it is already obliged to operate fair procedures - it does so as a matter of private law - and to give reasons for its decisions. No other sport, apart from greyhound racing, has its disciplinary process legislated for. However, as a matter of private law, each is required to have fair procedures and to comply with natural justice.
The amendments to section 45 are, therefore, not necessary to ensure or increase fairness. The explanatory memorandum states that section 45 places a statutory obligation for transparency in regard to sanctions imposed by the racing regulatory body. However, the Minister must realise that under proposals in section 13, if the racing regulatory body needs to impose a mandatory fine of €100 on a participant in the sport, it will have to go through a number of steps, as well as having an investigation and an inquiry. It will then have to reach a view that the person has breached the rules of racing. That person will then have to be afforded an opportunity to make representation, and the person will then have to be informed of the procedures to be taken, although this may have happened earlier. They will also have to be informed of the place and time of any proposed hearing.
This means, if I might say so, that it is a lawyers' paradise. It is great news, but the only people who will have to pick up the tab at the end of the day are the taxpayers. I am being honest about that. This will be a huge procedure, given the way it is outlined here. I spoke to the racing regulatory body last week and it has legal advice which is probably far more eminent that I will ever be. It was of the view that under this section and given the way it is laid out, the racing regulatory body will be unable to suspend any horses.
We should be careful in this regard. Could we imagine that the independent regulator for the multi-million horse racing industry was not able to ban a horse that had been administered an anabolic steroid, for example? That would surely make us a laughing stock and would not be good for us, if that were the position. Having looked though this section, I am concerned about it. The last thing the Minister wants is for the body to be unable to apply sanctions.
There is no need for this section and it should be removed. It could damage us both at home and internationally. The Minister referred earlier to the heads of the Bill, under which affected persons were allowed to appeal to the District Court. We are now arriving at a stage where they could not sanction a horse. The last thing we want is to introduce legislation that leaves loopholes or deficits in procedure on impartiality and fairness. Poorly drafted legislation can leave lots of lacunae, so the Minister should take on board these clearly expressed and legitimate concerns.
People at the coalface daily are more au fait with the minutiae of this matter than we are. I would be surprised if HRI was not of the same view. The current system of sanctions works well because it is fair and impartial. The important thing is that less legal involvement is better, although that is perhaps a bit rich coming from me.
I was going to say that.
It is a bit rich. I had better declare that I am a barrister by profession. The racing regulatory body and others have been in contact with us about this. We have an opportunity to do the right thing, even at this stage. The Minister said it is easy to delete sections but difficult to introduce new ones. Some of the amendments propose doing that. Let us be practical, however, and do the right thing in this section. I would be surprised if the Minister's officials are not taking cognisance of some of the points that are being made in this regard.
That was a long argument but this is a very important issue.
The arguments here are whether we should put the rules of horseracing in legislation or whether we leave them out and let the regulatory body apply the rules as it sees fit, applying natural justice and so on. There are real dangers with defining rules of racing in law because it then becomes an interpretation of the Bill as opposed to allowing a regulatory body to design and defend the rules of horseracing, as they are determined.
Having listened to the arguments and having spoken to various people and got advice on it, my inclination is to accept amendment No. 40 to avoid the uncertainty and the potential difficulties that may arise by trying to define in full sanctions and appeals around the rules of horseracing in the legislation and simply to remove section 13 from the Bill. On balance, that is the reasonable and probably the safer thing to do at this stage. The people who have been making the arguments for that will welcome this. I propose to accept Deputy Penrose's amendment No. 40 and on that basis, I will not move my amendments Nos. 41 to 43, inclusive.
As some said earlier on - I had my battle at the very beginning - the Minister is certainly somebody who is willing to listen. I accept that he too has explored it with other parties. This is a very important step by the Minister and he will not live to regret it. I hope the bodies involved will introduce the rules and act in accordance with them. They should keep everything out of court as much as possible. This is a way forward because it could have been a lawyer's paradise. If I lost my seat, I might have been able to look forward to a rich few days arguing many points had section 13 remained. The Minister might have removed a foot from under me in another form. I thank him for the constructive way he looked at this.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 41 to 43, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 44 to 50, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 46 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 45. Amendment No. 49 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 48. Amendments Nos. 44 to 50, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 20, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
“(3) HRI shall before it provides data to the Racing Regulatory Body under subsection (1), inform by notice in writing any person to whom the data relates of its intention and that the person may object to the proposal within 14 days of the notice.”.
These amendments essentially relate to data protection. Following Committee Stage, I reviewed the text and decided it should apply to all transfers of information. However, as a result, I have had to provide a time period in which a person may object to the transfer of information and the means to inform people affected that information will be transferred. The amendments provide these safeguards to individuals while ensuring that there is a workable solution for the industry.
We had a discussion on the issue on Committee Stage and the amendments I am introducing are practical and sensible. I ask colleagues to accept them.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 20, line 39, after “may” to insert “, within the period of time specified in subsection (3),”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 21, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“(7) The Racing Regulatory Body shall before it provides data to HRI under subsection (5), inform by notice in writing any person to whom the data relates of its intention and that the person may object to the proposal within 14 days of the notice.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 21, line 9, after “may” to insert “, within the period of time specified in subsection (7),”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 21, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(12) Where a notice in writing under subsection (3) or (7) relates to a class of persons to whom the data concerned relates, the notice may be published on the website of HRI or the Racing Regulatory Body, as the case may be, or in a newspaper published and circulating in the State (including a newspaper devoted to horseracing).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 51.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 22, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Veterinary Practice Act 2005 – mutual recognition
20. The Veterinary Practice Act 2005 is amended by—
(a) in section 43(9)(b) (inserted by section 8(1) of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Act 2012)—
(i) in subparagraph (iii), after “practitioner,” by deleting “and”,
(ii) in subparagraph (iv), by inserting “and” after “nationality,”, and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (iv) the following subparagraph:
“(v) a declaration of his or her knowledge of the English language necessary for practising as a veterinary practitioner,”.
and
(b) in section 95A(4)(b) (inserted by section 8(2) of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Act 2012) of that Act is amended—
(i) in subparagraph (ii)(II), by substituting “1 year” for “2 years”,
(ii) in subparagraph (iii), after “nurse,” by deleting “and”,
(iii) in subparagraph (iv), by inserting “and” after “nationality,”, and
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (iv) the following subparagraph:
“(v) a declaration of his or her knowledge of the English language necessary for practising veterinary nursing,”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
Sitting suspended at 5.55 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.