Irish Horseracing Industry Bill, 1994: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 9, before "betting office" to insert "on-course".
This is a minor matter but it is of some significance. Due to the later provisions in the Bill which refer to betting and the possible effect which the Racing Board and the totalisator might have on betting and the establishment of betting offices, it is important to clarify what a betting office is. In that context we suggest that it should be specified as on-course betting rather than off-course betting. The legislation would allow us to proceed to a situation where there might be off-course betting. The amendment is proposed in order to clarify the matter.
This section provides a precise definition for each of the series of words and phrases which are either used regularly throughout the Bill or may have a limited or special meaning in the Bill which would require, in the view of the draftsman, a precise definition. Section 2 states that "'betting office' means any premises at an authorised racecourse" in lines 9 and 10 of page 6 of the Bill. Senator Dardis is seeking to amend that phrase from "betting office" to "on-course betting office". However, the words "on-course" would be superfluous as the definition itself restricts the use of the term "betting office" to a premises at an authorised racecourse. Therefore, I oppose this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister give us a rough estimate of the time scale in relation to when the Authority will get under way? I know he said that he is going to meet them next Monday. Perhaps he could give us some of his inner thinking in relation to the setting up of the Authority and when we will see some action.
Senators will be aware that I recently announced the appointment of the Authority on an interim basis in order to facilitate essential preliminary arrangements on structures, staffing and other matters. I am asking the members to act with immediate effect, pending the finalisation of this legislation and the formal establishment of the Authority through the signing of an order under section 3. I expect that it will take until about September to get the staffing and various structures in place. By that stage all of the preparatory work will be done. The new Authority is meeting on Monday next, 4 July, and will get down to business straight away to get all of this preparatory work out of the way. I expect that it will formally come into existence by about September.
Some later sections deal with the various positions. Does the Minister think that the appointment of these people will take effect some time after that? Does he envisage any difficulty with the continuation of the employment of those who are employed at present in various areas? That is, that the people who are already employed there may move sideways or whatever but that their job prospects will not be in any danger.
The Senator has an absolute assurance on that. There is no difficulty whatsoever in relation to that. I expect a smooth transition from the old order and structures to the new one. I am anxious to get it up and running as quickly as possible. To that end I have asked the Authority to meet at an early date. It is meeting on Monday and will get this preparatory work out of the way during the summer so that by September it can hit the ground running, so to speak, and get moving on the real business.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 10 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 9, lines 34 and 35, to delete paragraph (d).
The reason for moving this amendment is to be consistent with amendment No. 10, which seeks to amend section 39 of the Bill. It is to remove the allocation of race fixtures and the setting of race programmes from the Authority and to leave it with the racecourse regulatory body. I do not see the need for the Authority to be involved in this exercise. I do not see why it cannot be done by the racecourse regulatory body. It involves quite a large secretarial job. In the event of the Authority being the body allocating the fixtures and setting the race programmes, how is it proposed to provide secretarial assistance to the Authority? Would it be through the existing Turf Club staff or would a new staff be set up? The basic thrust of the amendment is that I do not see the need for the Authority to involve itself in this particular exercise.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 10, which are being taken together, propose transferring the race fixtures and race programme committees back to the regulatory body. The race fixtures and race programmes are central to the whole organisation of racing. The Authority will be responsible for developing the industry, regulating betting to generate the maximum returns, the promotion of the industry and the guaranteeing of prize money and integrity of services. These are all dependent on achieving the best possible fixtures list and race programme at each fixture. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Authority to have final responsibility for these matters.
Within the constraints specified in sections 19 and 20, which involve a strong consultative process, the proposal in amendment No. 10 to allocate the function of licensing jockeys and trainers and other functions related to the regulation of horse racing to the regulatory body is not necessary as these are functions carried under the rules of racing and, therefore, are already covered by section 39 (b).
I should clarify that the regulatory body also licenses racecourses under the rules of racing. However, it was decided to include a specific provision in section 39 relating to the licensing of racecourses because section 59 of the Bill also provides for the authorisation of racecourses by the Authority. I wanted to make it clear that the licensing of such courses by the regulatory body which relates to the condition of the track, safety of horses and so on, will continue. The authorisation by the Authority relates to all the facilities at a racecourse.
Section 39 paragraph (g) as proposed in amendment No. 10 regarding representation at horseracing events abroad is not necessary either. I had a similar provision in the published Bill but deleted it on Committee Stage in the Dáil as I was persuaded by representations from the Turf Club that it was not necessary. It is now my view that this is a day to day matter which is not appropriate for inclusion in legislation. For those reasons I oppose amendments Nos. 2 and 10.
I am not clear what is wrong with the present system. Why is it deemed necessary to change a system which, as far as I understand it, has worked well in the past and continues to work well? That is the central question.
I welcome the Minister's amendment of section 39 to include the licensing of racecourses but I ask him to clarify the position on representation abroad. The remit of the Turf Club has been to be the international representative of Irish racing. It is affiliated to the international bodies and attends the international fora. Am I to understand from the Minister's comments that this is to continue and that nothing in the legislation will prevent the racecourse regulatory body or the Turf Club from being the international representative of the industry?
There is no change in relation to representing the industry abroad; it will continue as it was heretofore. During the consultation process it was suggested that, before representing the industry abroad, the racing regulatory body or the Turf Club would clear it with the new Authority. I met with the Turf Club subsequent to the published draft of the Bill and they pointed out that this would be a cumbersome and unwieldy operation. They also pointed out that they had represented the industry abroad, at various seminars and other activities for the past two centuries. I accepted their line of argument and deleted the original section. The Bill as now drafted is satisfactory to the Turf Club and the existing situation continues.
At some stage in the future the Turf Club may wish the Authority to represent racing. This could be due to financial or other considerations but it will be a matter for the Turf Club. There is no change and the Turf Club are happy with the Bill as it now stands.
I asked about fixtures. What is wrong with the present system which has prompted this change and the vesting of this function in the Authority rather than the racecourse regulatory body?
Integrity services are being provided by the racing regulatory body. The change is that the cost of the integrity services will be underwritten and guaranteed by the Authority; the entire cost of integrity services in the legislation are guaranteed by the new Authority. I believe this strengthens the position of the racing regulatory body. I consulted with members of the Turf Club and they are satisfied and completely happy with the modifications in the Bill.
Following the publication of the draft Bill after Government approval I met in Cork with representatives of the Turf Club. We went through the Bill in some detail and I accepted and introduced six or seven amendments to accommodate their concerns. This is one of those amendments. I am satisfied that they are happy with it and that it is in the long term interests of the industry.
I accept much of what the Minister says because, as I stated on Second Stage yesterday, the Bill has definitely been improved, particularly section 44 which says that: "The Racing Regulatory Body shall inform the Authority when making or amending any of the Rules of Racing". This is radically different from the provision in the original draft of the Bill.
I have another question, and I hope it is in order to deal with it on this section. It concerns the registry functions of the Turf Club. In terms of funding and the secretarial aspect of this function, does it reside with the Turf Club or is it to be a function of the Turf Club which must be met our of the funds of the Authority? I need clarification on that.
The registry office remains part of the Turf Club. They have a set of charges for integrity services and will continue to impose those charges to defray the cost of the registry office.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Paragraph (d) deals with the allocation of race fixtures and the setting of race programmes. Sunday racing has been a tremendous success and is very popular. Some national hunt meetings, and even some of the classic meetings, are now held on Sundays. There were initial difficulties about the cost of holding these meetings. Since they are a great success no doubt the Minister will discuss with the Authority further promotion and possibly an expansion of the number of Sundays on which meetings will be held. There will certainly be an effort to maintain the current number.
I ask the Minister to outline how he would envisage the maintenance of Sunday meetings. Will there be difficulties about paying people? There was much discussion about the cost of Sunday meetings, which seems to be inordinate. Obviously people expect to be paid more for working on a Sunday as it would normally be their day off.
Paragraph (f) deals with the promotion of the Irish thoroughbred horse. Obviously if racing is a success here, the promotion of this industry will be almost automatic. How does the Minister envisage the Authority dealing with this area? There may be greater recognition of horses racing abroad particularly in terms of exporting to Hong Kong, Australia, etc., where a more average horse could possibly achieve great success recognition can be given to the export market in Hong Kong, Australia and other places where a somewhat average horse can achieve great success. One can read in sales catalogues about relations of Irish horses which have won races in countries such as Spain, Australia and New Zealand. How can the Authority expand the promotion of the Irish thoroughbred horse?
I agree that Sunday racing is a major attraction. It has a down side in that it is unsocial and difficult for the staff who must work at the weekends. However, that problem has been resolved by the consensus on payment of appropriate rates for Sunday and weekend work. From time to time new rates will be discussed by the industry, staff and union representatives. It would be in the interest of the race-going public and the industry that this consensus continues.
We hope to make attendance at Sunday race meetings a little more attractive by improving the alcohol licensing arrangements so that people will be able to celebrate their winnings appropriately.
Or drown their sorrows, as may be the case. Sunday racing is thriving. It will be the responsibility of the new Authority to allocate appropriate fixtures and produce good programmes. The Budweiser Irish Derby is now held on a Sunday to facilitate television channels worldwide and to attract a wider audience.
The promotion of the Irish thoroughbred is extremely important. I have given it much consideration during the past couple of years and I have increased the allocation from the Department of Agriculture to the Irish Thoroughbred Marketing Board. Its chief executive, Matt Mitchell, was appointed a couple of years ago. After consultations between me and the Minister for Trade and Tourism the board received an allocation from his Department through the Irish Trade Board. Trade in horses is a valuable part of Ireland's general trade. In addition, the industry contributes pound for pound, so the organisation will have about £1 million available for promotion. At the Goff sales last November it encouraged and probably subsidised buyers from many countries, including new buyers from Scandinavian countries. It has also produced very professional promotional literature. The organisation is doing a good job. It is important for the size and scale of the industry that its promotion and marketing is accorded due importance. I will also see if it is possible to continue to increase the allocation to that body under the Structural Funds.
The World Equestrian Games will be held here in 1998 and they will be a showcase for the industry. This event could be used as a lever for promotion. Perhaps the Minister might consider making a special allocation for that purpose. All areas of the industry, from racing to eventing, are related and one should help to sell the other. Perhaps the Minister would make a special allocation in the next few years to promote such events.
That option would be worth pursuing. I believe that the equine industry is one industry; it is not divided into thoroughbred and non-thoroughbred. The United States, when it won the Nations' Cup in the RDS, had a team of thoroughbred horses. There is no doubt that hosting the World Equestrian Games is a tremendous fillip to the image of the Irish horse industry.
The Army Equitation School has also done a fabulous job over the years for the image of the industry. I hope to find a means of assisting the Army Equitation School in acquiring a continuous supply of good young horses. Its riders have been battling on the international front for many decades and they have done a tremendous job for the image and reputation of the Irish horse. It is an another aspect of the industry which I hope to assist in the future.
Section 10 states:
The general functions of the Authority shall be —
...
(b) the development and promotion of the Irish horseracing industry (including the development of authorised racecourses, the guaranteeing of prize money at race-fixtures and the costs of integrity services),
...
Does "development of authorised racecourses" mean that if, for example, the owners of Naas racecourse wish to dispose of property to develop their racecourse, the Authority has a direct input into the type of development that will take place? It should not have that role; it should be up to the owners of the racecourse to make such decisions. I accept that the licensing function would impose certain restrictions on the owners. However, in terms of the general development, the owners are putting their money on the line and they are entitled to decide how it should be spent. Does this provision only apply to racecourses such as The Curragh, which is controlled by the Turf Club, where the Authority would have a role in its development? If the Authority's role applies to all racecourses, would its role be such as to restrict the type of development which the owners of a racecourse believe they are entitled to carry out?
I assume that "development and promotion" applies to sponsorship. Will the Authority have a function in eliciting sponsorship, or would that be a matter for the racecourses or the racing regulatory body? We spoke about this matter on Second Stage. There are many sponsorship opportunities that are not being exploited. The flagship event is obviously the Budweiser Derby, which is consistent and very well done. Given the worldwide audience for the event, it is a good investment for Budweiser.
However, there are opportunities for sponsorship at a lower level and perhaps we do not do enough in that regard. On Second Stage I mentioned a newspaper report about the possibility of logos being worn on racing silks. I confess that I am a traditionalist and I would not consider it attractive to see a jockey racing up the straight in the Curragh with "Mars Bar" or a slimming product or sauna product — that might be more appropriate for jockeys — written on his or her chest. However, it is an important aspect of sponsorship. It has become prominent in other sports, particularly in golfing, where one can spot the small logo on the golfer's equipment and clothing. Could the Authority have a function in that regard?
Senator Cosgrave spoke about promotion in general. The quality of the videos being produced by leading Irish stud farms is very high. On the international scene such videos not only promote the industry but also the country. Would funds be made available to people who make these promotional videos since the videos are sent to international breeders and racing interests? Yesterday we spoke about the connection between this Minister and the Minister for Trade and Tourism. The recipients of these videos have in many instances large amounts of money to spend and they are influential in their communities. The distribution of such videos can be beneficial not only to the bloodstock industry but also to the tourism industry in general. They are highly effective.
The World Equestrian Games are coming to Punchestown and this has been discussed in Kildare County Council. We are anxious to maximise the benefit to the county from the games and the large amount of money which will come into the area as a result. When the council approaches the Minister for practical assistance for this purpose, I hope he will treat us favourably. That is a recommendation to the Minister and I apologise, a Chathaoirligh, if it is a parochial one.
It has nothing to do with the Bill.
We did stray into the subject of non-thoroughbred horses earlier so I hope I will be granted some indulgence.
I support what the Minister said and I encourage him to ensure that the Army Equitation School is sufficiently funded. The development of young horses is important because it is not feasible to buy fully matured horses. The success of the school has been due to its supply of horses being continually renewed. We cannot stress enough the importance of the school's achievements through the years. I fully support the Minister's position and I hope he can make his colleagues in Cabinet see the necessity of maintaining that standard and giving sufficient funds.
The development of authorised race courses is important and the Minister wants all-round standards to improve. The present courses should be maintained as far as possible, but it may be unrealistic to build new ones. In time some tracks may have to close. I will not mention any names. Perhaps the Minister has a list of favourites and a number of others which are not showpieces or he does not like because he did not have a lucky day out.
The equine industry is on a 32 county basis and every nook and cranny in the country has some connection with horses. Some areas have tremendous traditions. The Minister's region, Waterford, had great success last year. Tramore may not be the Irish equivalent of Ascot, but that area has a role to play. Does the Minister envisage the Authority improving overall standards in the maintenance, development and facilities of tracks? He may have some comments on his pet project, Mallow racecourse, how he sees it progressing and what timescale he has in mind.
In relation to section 10 (b), the development of racecourses is a matter for the local race committee. Under the Bill the Authority would assist the committee if it has proposals for assistance and modernisation. It is the prerogative of the race committee to draw up the proposals and it would then seek capital grant assistance.
I also envisage the Authority supporting local management in seeking sponsorship and having better support for the meetings. Some racecourses have good management and racing clubs attached to them and they go out of their way to obtain sponsorship. I think this should be encouraged because it makes the meetings much more attractive for racegoers; it increases the prize money and the meetings are better overall.
There is no question of the new Authority interfering with local management of race tracks. It is important however that the local management be encouraged to get sponsorship. In most parts of the country commercial organisations set aside a certain amount of money for promotion and marketing. There is no reason why the equine industry should not avail of that and I see the Authority giving assistance and support to those moves.
Agreement in principle on Mallow racecourse has been arrived at and the small print is being worked out. Money has been set aside in the budget for this purpose and I want this to come to fruition as early as possible. Tracks like Galway and Listowel put on meetings which are well sponsored and supported and make every effort to accommodate owners, trainers and racegoers. I want other local managements to follow that lead and keep facilities and tracks up to standard. Trainers are sometimes reluctant to take a particular horse to a given track, especially when the weather is taken into account. The racecourse tracks and facilities should be in proper condition and we hope to achieve that with this new Authority.
The emergence of race clubs connected to some tracks has helped this move. In Punchestown over the last few years an ordinary race track has emerged as the Irish equivalent to the Cheltenham Festival. It is extremely well attended and every effort has been made to turn it into an enjoyable, carnival occasion with great racing. The Punchestown Novice Chase was won this year by Mary Gale and it had £60,000 prize money; elsewhere entire race meetings with six or seven races might have total prize money of £13,000. This has happened because of dynamic management and local support through the racing club.
More of our tracks should take a lead from Punchestown and the other tracks which have done an outstanding job in recent years. The Authority will support the management of the racecourse rather than dictate to it.
Under the legislation would it be possible to allow sponsorship logos on racing silks if that was thought desirable? Would that ever be envisaged?
I am not sure. I saw a cartoon on this matter in a well-known publication last week. The logos on the silks in that cartoon could not be supported financially. This type of sponsorship to derive revenue happens in many sports — cycling, car racing, soccer, etc. I assume it will be a matter for the new Authority or the regulatory body or both to decide whether this is a way to increase funds. If I had a bet on a horse I would not mind what the jockey was wearing.
Senator Dardis would be the same. If his horse was in front 100 yards from home he would not care what logo was being worn.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11. —(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order confer on the Authority, in relation to the development and promotion of horseracing, such additional functions connected with the functions for the time being of the Authority, or the services or the activities that the Authority is authorised for the time being to provide or carry on (including functions of the Minister in relation to any directive, regulation or other act adopted by an institution of the European Union in relation to horseracing) as the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) No order made under subsection (1) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(3) No order varying or revoking an order made under this section (including an order under this subsection) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(4) The Minister may make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in relation to matters ancillary to or arising out of the conferral on the Authority of functions under this section, or the performance of functions so conferred (including provision for the transfer to the Authority of any property held by the Minister for the purposes of functions conferred on the Authority under this section).".
It is important for this House to be kept informed about the various orders being made, either through the Minister or in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Finance. As regards additional functions and the development and promotion of horseracing, I ask the Minister to consider laying certain orders before this House and to keep us informed about the promotion of certain matters.
Senator Cosgrave is proposing to substantially amend section 11 and has provided a new section 11 with four subsections. Key changes have been made in subsections (2) and (3). The section is dealing with the power of the Minister to confer additional functions on the horseracing Authority by order. In the present draft, this order would be subject to section 7, which means that the order would be laid before the Oireachtas and either House would have the power to annul it within the next 21 days on which they sit.
The proposal seeks to amend section 11 so that an order under that section would not have effect until it is approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This would defeat the purpose of the section. The section is to cater for urgent situations which might arise, where it would be appropriate to confer additional functions on the Authority at relatively short notice. The safeguards are that in conferring additional functions, those functions must be connected with the functions of the Authority for the time being, or the services or activities which the Authority is already authorised to provide. As a result, there is no power given to the Minister by virtue of section 11 which would allow him to confer any additional function on the Authority, which is not connected with the functions specified in section 10.
If the order was required to be approved in advance by the Oireachtas, this could delay providing for some technicality which would allow the Authority to act quickly if a new situation arose. An example may be that if some technical matter arose during the recess, nothing could be done about it for the length of the recess, which is approximately two and a half months. This is an opportunity to do things quickly. If there is a problem, it can be annulled within 21 sitting days. There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill on this matter. Therefore, I oppose amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 4 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Any individual, association, company or body corporate on whom or on which the Authority shall levy a charge, either on its own behalf or on behalf of the Racing Regulatory Body, or by the agency of the Racing Regulatory Body, or jointly with the Racing Regulatory Body in connection with the powers conferred by this Act on the Authority and on the Racing Regulatory Body, shall have the right to appeal against the level of those charges to a court of competent jurisdiction.".
This amendment is similar to one tabled under section 40. The question of charges and fines must be considered and there should be an appeals procedure so that people can appeal the level of the charges. There is a danger that an Authority could impose unreasonable charges, fines or levies. There should be an appeals system. For example, the manager of the Irish team could not appeal his fine because it was below a certain amount. There should be an appeals procedure for small or high charges or levies. It is not right for an authority to suddenly impose a fine because one is dealing with all types of individuals. A certain charge may not mean a lot to the sheikhs of the world or to the better racecourses, but the racing world is full of small individuals who are not wealthy. They should have a right of appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction in relation to an amount being levied.
Amendment No. 5 proposes that people upon whom the Authority levies a charge should have a right of appeal against the level of those charges to a court of competent jurisdiction. It could prove to undermine the power of the Authority in the setting of charges if every individual affected had a right, enshrined in legislation, to challenge the level of charge applied. We must remember that all the relevant interests in the industry have representation on the Authority. These groups also have strong and well established associations to negotiate their position for them. It is reasonable to say that the Authority will, for its own sake, set any charges it sees necessary at a reasonable level. The representative bodies concerned will lobby to ensure fairness of charges applied.
I draw the attention of the House to subsection (1), where it states that "The Authority may make such charges, as it considers necessary and appropriate". If, in the exceptional circumstances an individual feels that a particular charge on him or her is unfair, then that person would have recourse to the normal legal remedies, such as a judicial review. For those reasons, I oppose this amendment.
I accept what the Minister said because too often people resort to litigation. We remember the Christy Roche saga with St. Jovite in an incident in Naas. Bodies should be self-regulatory. It is important that people should have a right of appeal in the case of natural justice. For that reason, I will press the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Níl
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Doyle; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to the question of the conflict of interests obviously we will not have people from Utopia on the board or as staff members. What measures will be in place to ensure there will be no overall conflict? Obviously, there has to be fairly basic disclosure of interests but, in relation to staff and others, but does the Minister envisage any difficulties in this regard?
There is now a requirement that members of State boards or authorities have to disclose interests. A questionnaire has to be completed by new members and updated on a regular basis. Any members of the staff of the new Authority or of any of its subsidiaries who has an interest in any contract, agreement or arrangement to which the Authority or subsidiary is a party must declare that interest and take no part in any negotiations or recommendations on any matter. The issue of the declaration of interests is well covered under the regulations for the Authority and any of its subsidiaries.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 14, line 43, to delete "after consultation" and substitute "in conjunction".
As it stands the section says that: "The Authority shall, after consultation with the Racing Regulatory Body, establish a committee ("the race-programme committee") to determine the race-programme for all race-fixtures." Consultation is not strong enough; there should be a joint function here given that the Minister has made improvements to the Bill and, in particular, to section 44 which says: "The Racing Regulatory Body shall inform the Authority when making or amending any of the Rules of Racing", in other words, vesting that function in the racing regulatory body rather than in the authority and having the regulatory body inform the authority.
It is important that there would be a spirit of partnership and a spirit of cooperation between the authority and the racing regulatory body and anything that can be done to reduce tension between the two should be done. I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment so that rather than have the authority consulting the racing regulatory body and then acting unilaterally there should be an element of joint decision making in this matter. This is only in respect of the race programme and not the race fixtures so I do not see what difficulty there would be about the matter. It is not of major import but, in the spirit in which some of the other amendments have been made by the Minister it would be entirely consistent to accept this amendment.
The proposal of this amendment is to change section 20 to have the race programme committee established by the Authority in conjunction with the regulatory body rather than after consultation with that body. I am not satisfied with the phrase "in conjunction with". In the context of the amendment proposed this would lead to some confusion about which organisation has the final responsibility to establish the committee. It is important in legislation to have clarity above all and, therefore, I am holding to the view that the consultation process suggested in the Bill is sufficient and leaves the final responsibility for establishing the committee firmly with the Authority.
The Turf Club expressed reservations and concerns about this section and I met its representatives at the meeting in Cork. I agreed with them that we would simplify the original section and I introduced an amendment in the Dáil to satisfy their concerns. It is my understanding that it was satisfactory from their point of view. On those grounds I oppose amendment No. 6.
I do not agree that it would lead to confusion because it is the committee which will determine the race programme. That power will be vested in the committee and I do not see why the committee cannot be drawn jointly from the authority and the regulatory body. I realise the Minister has made a genuine attempt to allay some of the fears of the Turf Club and others in respect of the Bill, but just because he has done so does not mean that it is not right to press the amendment.
I have gone out of my way to facilitate the concerns of all the interested parties in relation to this matter. The organisation and laying out of the race programme is a detailed matter. As everybody knows, the type of programme available at various fixtures is important. In that Dáil and here reference has been made to the programmes offered at a number of fixtures. The programmes committee will be important; it will have to meet for extensive periods and have technical people in its membership. In the extended discussions I had with the various interests and the Dowling, Moriarty and Brosnan committees, there was a reasonable degree of consensus that this was the best way of dealing with this matter. For those reasons I stand over this section and oppose amendment No. 6.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I want to ask the Minister about the proposed appointment of the new chief executive of the Authority. This is an important position and some thought should go into choosing the most suitable person and what will be expected from that person. Will it be the Authority, the Minister or a combination of both who will choose the candidate? There were apparent difficulties over some of the nominations to the Authority and no doubt the Minister is aware of possible names being mentioned for the post. When will the chief executive be appointed? Will that person come from within the present ranks of the Authority, or has that been decided yet? If not, will the Minister be seeking a businessman, as has been mentioned by one member of the Authority, with a flair for developing industries. It will not be sufficient to appoint solely an administrator.
It is important to appoint the right person to the job if we want to move the Racing Board into the next century and further develop horse racing. It is obviously a job that will require reasonable remuneration. A small salary will not attract the right type of person. Hopefully, the new Authority will work well, but a lot of this will depend on a good chief executive. I am sure the Minister would agree that the person nominated and selected for this position will have to know about the industry but will also have to have a greater awareness of the importance of selling it. Could the Minister elaborate on how he would see matters proceeding? Will it be the Minister or the Authority who will choose the person? When does the Minister see the chief executive being appointed?
This matter is clearly covered under section 21, especially subsection (5), which states that "The chief executive shall be appointed, and may be removed from office at any time where he fails to perform his functions satisfactorily, by the Authority." Therefore, they will be appointed by the Authority, which is only proper. The Authority was set up to develop the industry and set it on a sound footing, hopefully for many years to come. It should naturally get the best possible chief executive. I envisage the Authority putting its structures in place when it gets down to business next week. It will formally take over from the Racing Board by September. It will over that period of time have to decide on its chief executive. I assume it will publicly advertise for the position.
This situation is now fairly standardised with State bodies. It involves a chief executive being appointed and given his or her functions by the Authority itself. The only role played either by myself or the Minister for Finance is in ensuring that their salary is set within the public service guidelines. I will be glad to leave the matter of picking the best person for the job to the good sense and wisdom of the Authority.
Does the Minister expect the chief executive to be appointed by early autumn? When the Minister meets the Authority next Monday could he impress on it the need for appointing a dynamic person who could efficiently promote, sell and run the industry? Could the Minister also pass on the various comments he heard in this House to the Authority? I presume most of its members appreciate the necessity of getting it off on the right foot from the first day by getting the right person. It is not for the Minister or myself to say who that person should be, but he or she should hold more than just an administrative role. They should be a vehicle for selling, promoting and developing the industry and liaise at all times with the Authority.
I will convey the wishes expressed by Senator Cosgrave to the Authority. It makes a great deal of sense for the Authority to treat this matter with the significance and importance it deserves. The new chief executive will be the key person being charged with the implementation of the programme of development which will be outlined by the Authority. It would be the wish of the Members of both Houses that the best possible person is sought to assume this role, something in which I concur.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 7:
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 stress to the Minister the necessity for treating the various racecourses on an equal basis. Obviously, when applications come to the Authority, it will have to come up with priority lists, targets and the like. However, I hope that all of the money does not only go to a few tracks. Basic facilities in all tracks should be improved. Racecourses that are not as fashionable and may not necessarily be admired by everyone should also get a fair hearing. All of them should be treated fairly and in an impartial manner. When an application is made, each of them should be judged on its merits. While the Authority will obviously have certain priorities — everything cannot be done overnight — I hope it will act in a fair and impartial way and without any favour or prejudice against some racetracks.
The amendment requires the Authority to act in a fair and impartial manner when considering requests from racecourses for funding and when allocating such funds. A basic assumption underlining the Bill is that the new Authority will act in a fair and impartial manner in carrying out all of its functions. In any event, it is required to do so within any reasonable interpretation of the rules of natural justice. It is not necessary therefore to write this into legislation and I am advised that it would not be appropriate to included such a statement in the Bill. It is not used in other Acts and it would in any event imply that there may be some reason to suspect that the Authority may not act fairly. It is something which could undermine the Authority. It could be argued that provisions such as that proposed could be used by a person who vexatiously felt aggrieved by the Authority. Furthermore, any person who feels legitimately aggrieved by the Authority may have recourse to the courts through the judicial review process.
The race tracks are well represented on the Authority. The chairman of the Association of Irish Racecourses, Pierce Maloney, is a member of the Authority, as are two other members who are managers of racecourses. If I have a concern regarding this matter it is that a number of the more provincial racecourses are not represented on it and there appears to be a concentration of representation from the County Kildare area.
I will monitor the situation closely to ensure that the less glamorous racetracks get a fair crack of the whip, as in natural justice they deserve to. Any racetrack which makes a reasonable proposal for support should get it, and is entitled to get it, because there is the underlying assumption that the Authority will in all respects act fairly and impartially.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."
I do not wish to circumvent your authority, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, and I accept your ruling. However, funding is central to the Bill — without adequate funding the edifice constructed by the Bill will fall apart. There must be a degree of certainty regarding the way in which the Authority, and racing in general, is to be funded.
The Minister has made the point on several occasions about the importance of putting the industry on a sound footing. Section 27 is central to that exercise. A way this could be achieved would be to allocate a fixed sum from off-course betting. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which unfortunately I am not allowed speak to because they have been ruled out of order, refer to this system of funding and suggest that the off-course revenue should be considered with a view to having part of it allocated to the Authority.
If adequate prize money is not forthcoming and if the Authority is not provided with adequate funds to resource its functions, the Bill will not achieve the effect the Minister wishes of improving the industry and putting it on a sound footing for the future. However, unless the funding aspect is dealt with effectively and properly it is impossible to see how the objective which the Minister has set for himself can be achieved.
Section 27 is required to allow for the provision of funds from the Exchequer to the Authority, the level and form of which will be decided in the context of the annual Estimates of public expenditure by Government Departments. It has been much commented upon that the section does not include a specific commitment to the provision of a sum at least equal to 2 per cent of the 10 per cent tax collected on off-course betting. This would be a major departure from the arrangements which have applied to the provision of Exchequer funds to all other industries and it would take from the power of the Government and the Dáil to decide each year how best the moneys available to them should be spent. More importantly, it would lead to the position where a substantial number of claims from other sectors to be treated similarly.
The reason for the demands for the fixing of the funds to the off-course betting is to ensure an adequate level of funding to facilitate the development of the industry in the years ahead. I have already given a strong commitment on this. I reiterate my advice to the House on Second Stage of the Bill when I confirmed that the Authority may plan for the future on the basis that the Exchequer contribution will be maintained at current levels.
I believe that I can stand on my record regarding previous commitments to this industry. I accept that we will not always be around to look after our favourite sport or industry, and in view of this I would like to see an amount or percentage of funding provided into the future. However, given the structure of the office of the Attorney General and the draftsman's office, and given also the way in which the country is run and operated since the foundation of the State, this cannot be done.
In addition, the amount of money bet on Irish racing is relatively small compared to the amounts bet off-course. For example, the national lottery is now a major betting opportunity for people in the High Street offices. In addition, there is betting on British racing and various other activities. I understand, for example, that the Mount Juliet golf classic, sponsored by Murphy Brewery (Ireland) Limited in Cork, is another occasion where people have a little dabble.
I am not aware of how heavily they dabble, but the USA classics are bet on also. These sports would also seek, with some justification, their cut or percentage from off-course betting.
Given the constraints and circumstances involved, the section applies the same provisions as are applied to all State bodies. The current level of funding, which I have made a commitment will be maintained, is in excess of what is sought as a percentage of the off-course betting. In addition, and as an indication of my goodwill towards the industry, I was able to persuade the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners to recognise that any surpluses which the Authority will make will be reinvested in total to promote and develop the industry.
The Government is also prepared to consider conferring tax exemption status on the Authority in the next Finance Act, which would be of great benefit to the Authority. The incentive would then exist to create various ways of raising revenue, revenue which would go totally into the industry for its further development.
Given the two-thirds of the cost of the various services, prize money and development of the industry provided by the taxpayer, together with the tax and income status which we propose conferring on it, the industry is doing relatively well. It is my intention — and I have put this on the record for future Ministers in charge of the industry — to ensure that an adequate and appropriate level of funding will be available.
Under the circumstances there is no further strengthening I can give to the industry and I am satisfied that there will be scope and opportunity for the Authority to plan into the future on the basis of this section to the Bill.
One of the points that was made on Second Stage was the fairly central issue of prize money. It is apparent that without adequate prize money the industry will die on its feet. There must be some reasonable expectation when one puts a horse in training that one is going to make something out of it. During the past week certain criticisms were levelled at the industry about the fact that off-course betting was primarily directed at English racing because it was perceived to be fairer than Irish racing. I do not know the truth or otherwise of that allegation but on the assumption that there was some substance to it, part of it would have to relate to an inadequacy in prize money. If the prize money is not adequate to cover the expenses being met by the owner there is an obvious temptation to wait to bring off the coup. Prize money is important in terms of actually making the industry fair.
I can tell the Minister, with my hand on my heart, that on one occasion in the Phoenix Park I was going into a race meeting with an owner who was approached by another owner asking if a deal could be done prior to the race. Fortunately, my owner was an honourable person and said there were no circumstances under which he would consider a deal. In the event, his horse was beaten a short head by the horse of the owner who had sought the deal. That sort of carry on cannot be legislated for but it comes back to the point that prize money is important.
The Turf Club's accounts for 1993 indicate that the Racing Board contributed £5 million in prize money while owners contributed £4 million. Commercial sponsorship accounted for approximately £2.25 million and other sources of prize money came from EBF sponsorship and surplus funds, giving a total prize fund of £12,242,650. It is a substantial amount of money but not when you spread it over all the races in the Irish calendar. Yesterday, we discussed the fact that the average figure for prize money was just over £7,000, but when one takes the classics and group 1 races out of it, you are down to small amounts of money. The Minister himself referred to race meetings where the total prize money was no more than £12,000 for the day. An important issue at stake here is that if the industry is to be developed, the question of prize money and the wider aspect of funding is central to it.
The Minister makes the point that certain procedures have been in place since the foundation of the State. We get into very heavy going in this area, to use racing parlance. The Turf Club had certain procedures in place for 200 years and it was deemed important to rectify those, so perhaps procedures which have been in place since the foundation of the State could also be reviewed. That, however, is a wider issue.
In terms of off-course betting, there are events which people bet on which have nothing to do with horse racing, such as golfing and the outcome of the World Cup. Nevertheless, on the basis that that money is going into the Exchequer, there is an entitlement that our largest industry based on betting should derive significant benefit. Yesterday, the Minister used a figure of £35 million which accrued to the Exchequer from off-course betting. The £5 million from the Racing Board, which takes the on-course side of the business into account, is very small. We will deal with on-course betting later on, where there is a huge possibility for development.
I cannot understand how a State monopoly can lose money on betting. We must be unique in the world in that the tote actually loses money. I do not know how that is possible. I do not know of any betting operation that ever lost money anywhere other than that particular one. Another aspect of the issue is that much of the off-course betting is falling into the hands of large English or other international companies. The small high street bookmaker has gone out of business or has been taken over by the large operators if he was in any way successful. I do not have a great deal of sympathy for these big operators.
There is another question that I wish to spring on the Minister and I am sure he can answer it. It concerns the race apprentice centre which, as the Minister knows, is highly successful. It has done valuable work in bringing competent and qualified people into the industry. I assume that the Authority will be responsible for funding the race apprentice centre, the equine centre and the farrier scheme and that they will continue as before. In other words, I assume that their funding is secure and that there is no question of them not securing the funds which they require to continue in operation.
Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Dardis in relation to prize money. Until the Exchequer contribution to racing a few years ago, funding was at an all time low and it was hardly worth people's while participating. The Senator rightly made the point that if people had the cost of keeping a horse in training, the incentive was there to wait for a coup rather than be bothered with the small amount of prize money available. In the last few years the situation has improved, especially in the National Hunt end of the industry where prize money has increased substantially and now compares favourably with most other racing industries worldwide. That is not to say, however, that it cannot be further improved. I would encourage the management of racetracks to seek additional sponsorship because it is obviously worthwhile for people to enter horses in valuable races. If the value of the prize money is sufficient they will all be trying. There is an unfortunate perception that racing in Britain or other countries is fairer on the punter than here and that they get better value for their money. Whether there is any credence to that or not I do not know. This Authority, however, will seek to improve the facilities, regulation, image and integrity of Irish horseracing. The Authority will put every effort into ensuring that all those matters are to the fore in their deliberations. I wish them success in that regard.
The race apprentice centre and the equine centre are extremely important components of the overall industry. On a number of occasions I have been at the race centre where they are producing fine Irish-born jockeys as well as training apprentices from Japan and other countries. Not alone do they train them in the skills of horse riding but they also provide education in managing their domestic finances. Many of the apprentices come from fairly deprived backgrounds and get a tremendous opportunity — probably their first — in education as well as learning a skill. They also have the opportunity to have a fine career and maybe even become famous. Many of us would never qualify for entry to that school because you have to weigh about five stone and anybody over that limit would be excluded. So, it is not just on the CV alone that one gets into it. Similarly, tremendous work has been done in the equine centre. We all know that when viruses strike, the horses run below par and a stable can be put out of business. It is important to have all the components in place for a comprehensive industry. The new Authority is charged with the responsibility of looking after the various sectors and I am sure that that will be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 28 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister introduced an amendment in the other House in relation to the starting price. Much depends on the starting price and is the Minister satisfied that any difficulties or problems have been dealt with by this section? As the Minister is aware, it is most important that there is no question of any underhand dealing and that there is one official starting price. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the various people who made representations to him are satisfied, particularly the off course bookmakers, because there have been questions with regard to the starting price.
Our friend in England, Mr. McCrirrick, makes great play at times about a horse that is two to one on the off but which is suddenly shortened up to seven to four when it comes to giving the starting price. The Minister is probably on a better price anyway. One could be concerned about a manipulation of the service, particularly as regards the control waged by the major forces and large chains in that they could perhaps start to write their own price.
The integrity of starting prices is an essential component of racing. The starting price return is the return made by a person at a race fixture who has examined the generality of odds available to punters at the track from on course bookmakers. This person takes into account what level of bets are being placed with the different bookmakers at particular odds and then calculates what he or she assesses to be the odds which were typically available to punters at the track on each horse in each race at the off. These are the odds which are then used by bookmakers on the high street for paying bets.
Naturally, it is critical to the off course betting scene that the integrity of the starting price return is maintained. The system for returning the starting price has for the last few years been the subject of a contract between the people calculating the starting prices and the Association of Irish Racecourses. A situation developed from this in recent years whereby two contracts existed and therefore for certain events two starting prices were calculated, which was chaotic. This led to confusion and did not protect the integrity of the starting price return. It could have serious consequences for off-course betting on Irish horseracing.
It was not our intention to alter the current regime in any way other than to ensure that as soon as possible there is no more than one starting price in respect of any race, that the situation whereby there are two starting prices being dissimulated is not allowed to recur and that the job continues to be carried out by people or an organisation that is both independent and reputable. It is therefore envisaged that the licence will be issued to an independent and reputable organisation, but this will be done on the nomination of the Association of Irish Racecourses. A provision is included to allow individual racecourses to nominate a body. It is not anticipated that it will be used other than in exceptional circumstances where the association was unable to continue to represent all racecourses. There will now be a specific requirement, by the insertion of subsection (5), that there shall be no more than one starting price returned for any horse in any race.
As the Senator correctly said, this matter was the subject of a great deal of concern and I met a number of delegations. In association with those who were concerned about this matter, a consensus was reached that this section covers it adequately. Nobody wants a reoccurrence of the chaos of the two starting prices for horses at particular meetings.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister envisage the tote operating at Down Royal and Downpatrick in the future? The Minister said that there will be changes in the way the tote operates as regards the High Street, but is there an integral difficulty involved in having the tote operate there? Has the Minister had any consultations with his opposite number, or would it require legislation? Racing there needs a boost and it prevents jackpots taking place, etc. In time, given the new improved tote, does the Minister envisage that it will operate at those two meetings?
In section 34 we have a continuation of the provision in the 1945 Act simply giving the Authority power to operate a tote betting service. However, this section also allows for the service to be provided by a subsidiary company. The Authority or subsidiary could then enter joint ventures on developments in this area. This an enabling situation which would allow the tote to develop in conjunction with the developments taking place generally.
An amendment to the Tote Act, in section 63 of the Bill, will remove the one technical restriction in that Act which would have prevented the extension of tote betting to the high street. Simple amendments to the Department of Finance tote regulations and the Racing Board's tote licence could then provide for such an extension of the tote if the Authority make a case for it. There has been much criticism voiced about the fact that the existing Irish tote is not making money for the industry. The provision in this Bill will affect the tote and how it may be structured. It will allow the Authority to reorganise the way in which the tote is operated so as to put in place the structure which would be most efficient and profitable.
Members of this House and the other House have raised the fact that the tote in Ireland must one of the few tote operations anywhere in the world that does not return a profit. In my Second Stage speeches in both Houses I stated that this is one of the matters that I want the new Authority to examine at an early stage. There is no point in the Exchequer providing money for an industry if the industry's own resources are declining. Unfortunately, this is what has happened in recent years in relation to Irish racing. I want the Authority to examine all ways and means to develop the industry, particularly in relation to developing new sources of revenue and rationalising and making more efficient its existing sources.
I see no difficulty with having the tote operations here available to racing anywhere in the world, including Down Royal. I will examine the possibility of discussing the extension of the tote to particular racecourses with the industry there. It is a 32 county sport and if its facilities can be developed in any way, including the tote, it will be done.
If one is at a track in England, one can bet on the tote there. This should be possible in Ireland; it makes sense. The whole area of the tote must be examined in terms of improvements and expansion. It seems crazy that a body which does not lose money elsewhere loses money in this area. The tote should be expanded and connected so that if one is in Mallow one can also bet on a race in Leopardstown.
This is an enabling provision. If one is in Mallow and there is a meeting at Leopardstown in which one fancies something in the third race, one will have the opportunity to place one's bet in Mallow, Sligo or elsewhere. I gave the example yesterday of racing in Australia, which is a highly developed industry. As the House is aware, there are approximately 35 minutes between each race and people want activity. They do not just bet on the race that is taking place on the track there but perhaps on races at five or six other tracks elsewhere in the country. If there is racing at Ascot or Cheltenham and somebody is at a meeting in Listowel, Galway, Leopardstown or wherever, they will have an opportunity to place their bet on the racecourse, at particular tracks. With satellite communication tracks can show racing from other tracks on large screens.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before we discuss the section, I am sure the House would like to welcome Ms. Triona Vargo, chief adviser to US Senator Edward Kennedy.
I feel strongly about the effects this section will have on the operation of the tote. There is absolutely no need for this Authority to become involved in bookmaking. I understand that one of its members is a successful bookmaker but I do not think the rest of the Authority needs to follow suit. We strongly oppose this section. No case has been made to show why it is necessary for the Authority to have a bookmaker's licence.
I want to make it absolutely clear that it is not intended in this section to even consider allowing the Authority itself to act as a bookmaker, this section would only allow a subsidiary of the Authority to act as a bookmaker. This is further qualified in section 36 which provides that such a subsidiary company can only be established with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. Senators may be concerned about the risks which may be involved in a State board operating as a bookmaker. I assure the House that this is only an enabling provision. It was recommended by the Dowling committee, to which I referred yesterday. It was felt by that broadly based industry committee that the option of allowing a subsidiary of the Authority to become involved in bookmaking should be there to be used only if circumstances in the future made such a development desirable.
Senator Dardis pointed out that many regular family bookmakers have gone out of business because they were unprofitable or, if they were profitable, they were taken over by major British companies such as Corals and Ladbrokes. The whole structure of bookmaking has changed over the last decade and will probably change further over the next number of decades. The industry felt that this enabling section will be an option for it in the future and the Minister and the Minister for Finance would have to give consent. This would not be given unless there were serious and well researched studies carried out on the matter and detailed proposals submitted which would justify such a development. 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. I strongly oppose the deletion of this section. It was requested by the industry as an enabling measure which may in the future be a possibility for it.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 20: Níl, 11.
Tá
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Wall; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Doyle.
Question declared carried.
Sections 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 21, before section 39, and in Part III, to insert the following new section:
"39. —On the establishment day there shall stand established the Racing Regulatory Body whose functions shall be:
(a) to licence racecourses under the rules of racing,
(b) to licence jockeys and racehorse trainers,
(c) to regulate horseracing,
(d) to allocate race-fixtures and to set race programmes,
(e) to make and enforce the Rules of Racing at race-fixtures and in so doing to promote integrity and fair play in horseracing,
(f) to provide adequate integrity services for horseracing,
(g) to represent Irish horseracing outside the State at those events at which the Governing Body (within the meaning of the Act of 1945) represented Irish horseracing, and
(h) to maintain a Register of horses in training, verify entries and hold stakes."
Amendment No. 10 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2. Is this amendment being pressed?
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Henry, Mary.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Níl
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Dardis and Henry; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."
This section was improved by the introduction of subsection (d) which provides that the racing regulatory body will have the function of licensing racecourses. The subsection was an important and welcome addition. It is also welcome that the Minister dropped the restriction on representing the Irish horseracing industry abroad. Am I correct in assuming that the racing regulatory body will represent the industry abroad?
Who is responsible for the licensing of jockeys, trainers and so forth?
The racing regulatory body.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
I urge the Minister to ensure that consultations take place about fines and fees so that the hard pressed owner is not totally wiped out.
The new declaration system is a help. It means that people do not have to spend a lot of money entering races weeks in advance of them being held. Perhaps the Minister would note my point regarding fines and fees and mention it to the Authority. Big owners will not be affected badly by the loss of a few pounds. However, other owners might be operating on a tight budget and unnecessary fines and levies do not help them or help to keep them in the industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 41 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Section 45 agreed to.
Sections 46 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 26, before section 50, to insert the following new section:
"50. —Notwithstanding any provisions of this Part of the Bill, the Authority may set out regulations which will allow for the sale of bookmaker's pitches at racecourses so that authorised bookmakers with course-betting representative permits with not less than two years experience or service on racecourses, shall be able to purchase them freely.".
There have been difficulties about the availability and passing on of pitches on racecourses. The Minister should look at this matter and talk to the members of the Authority and other representatives about it. Some bookmakers down the line find it difficult to stay in business and they are far from where the main action is taking place. Perhaps some areas should be redesigned. At some racecourses in England the pitches are almost on top of each other and it is most uncomfortable. However, at other tracks one could walk a couple of furlongs, from one end of the line to the other.
While the Senator's proposal appears to have merit, I did not intend that the Bill should be so intrusive into the organisation of the betting regime on racecourses. That is a matter for the racecourses and the bookmakers. The Authority is involved in the type of betting that takes place because it affects the levy and the service to the punter.
Section 50 envisages agreement between racecourses and bookmakers on a range of issues relating to betting. The Authority then brings in regulations governing these areas. The regulations and rules on the sale of bookmaker pitches should be specified. As I promised the Dáil, I will ask the Authority to examine this matter when drafting the regulations and to do so in consultation with the bookmakers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 50 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 53.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 28, lines 1 to 6, to delete subsection (2).
This refers to the opening hours for betting offices on racecourses. The subsection specifies that the betting office should not be open for business before the public is admitted and should not be open for more than one hour after the conclusion of the last race.
It is fair to assume that the operation of racecourses will change in the future. They will become more like leisure centres and will have a wider range of uses than is the case at present. If we assume that Leopardstown, for example, has restaurants and other facilities available to the public, is associated with a sports club and is open to the public seven days of the week, it would appear to be reasonable that the betting office on the premises should also be open to the public. It would probably be an added attraction. It makes sense and would be part of the overall development of the industry. The amendment is proposed in that context.
Amendment No. 14 proposes to delete the control of the opening hours of betting offices.
The opening hours of betting offices are restricted from the time the public is admitted to the racecourse for the race fixture to one hour after the last race. This is necessary because the opening hours of betting premises on the High Street are severely restricted to 6 p.m. each evening and they are closed on Sundays. The exemption to these laws is allowed because of the direct association of the betting activity to the sport of horse racing taking place; therefore the extended hours in the evenings and on Sundays must be limited to the event.
Any further liberalisation is a matter for amendment of the Betting Act, 1931, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister for Justice. It would not be appropriate for me to make amendments to the betting laws in this Act beyond those strictly necessary in the context of the Bill.
Developments are taking place in racing and other activities on which people place bets. Events can be seen on satellite television and people in pubs and other social centres may want to place bets on the event. This is happening unofficially at present and perhaps these bets should be allowed officially when evening meetings from various parts of the world can be seen. On the other hand, these facilities are fine for those making the bets, but their spouses or families may think there is enough betting at present without further liberalisation.
It is a matter for the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice to amend the Betting Act, 1931, if this is thought desirable. I can tell my colleagues this call has been made but the matter needs some consideration before making a change. The section allows for betting up to one hour after the race meeting and I think that is a reasonable balance. I oppose amendment No. 14 because further opportunities to bet would liberalise betting to a far greater extent than many of the non-betting public would wish.
I would not like the Minister to think I am proposing unrestricted betting because I see the dangers involved there, although it is reasonable to assume people who are addicted to betting will find a way to service their habit. However, the concern here is that the subsection precludes racecourses from becoming involved in betting activities if there was free public access to the course.
If this subsection is adopted, am I correct in saying there would be no circumstances under which the course would be able to operate a betting service other than under the terms of the subsection? In that case, if there is a large event on a day, not necessarily a racing day, on which the public has access to race course bars and restaurants, the course would be precluded from operating a betting service. Activities on non-racing days are likely to increase, so would betting be precluded in all circumstances except under the terms of the Bill?
The position is as outlined by the Senator; the facilities are directly associated with the event taking place at the racecourse. I know what the Senator refers to because I was in Leopardstown when the Breeders Cup was beamed in by satellite. It was a nice occasion and I, along with others, would have liked to have a bet on a horse in the race to heighten the excitement, but that was not possible. On such occasions I think the provision of betting facilities would be reasonable but the public may have a different view. The proposed liberalisation and opening up of additional betting opportunities is quite far-reaching. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Departments and Ministers responsible, but in relation to this amendment I am unable to accede to Senator Dardis' request.
There is no special difference of opinion between myself and the Minister on this matter; it is a question of finding a vehicle to achieve the end. In that context the amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 53 agreed to.
Sections 54 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 59.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 33, subsection (1), line 2, after "authorisation", where it firstly occurs, to insert "issued by the Racecourse Regulatory Body".
My main concern is with amendment No. 17, which is concerned with the duration of the licence. On Second Stage I said five years is not long enough. If a body operating a racecourse wants to begin a development programme and wishes to borrow to raise funds, there may be a degree of uncertainty. If the bank discovers the licence will only last five years it will almost inevitably not give a loan for a longer period because it cannot be certain the licence will be renewed. The non-renewal may be an unlikely eventuality but bankers are adept at catering for all such events and limit their exposure to a great degree.
The period should therefore be longer because five years is a short time. Given the way racecourses are operated it is unlikely circumstances would change so much within a ten year period as to preclude giving a second licence. The process is more likely to take ten rather than five years. If the Racecouse Regulatory Body is to be the licensing body, the Bill should specify that it rather than the Authority will grant the authorisation. That is the reason for proposing Amendment No. 15.
I will not press amendment No. 16.
On amendment No. 15 I refer the Senator to the definition of an authorised racecourse in the Bill as one authorised by an Authority under section 59. Racecourses are licensed by the regulatory body under the rules of racing under section 39; this relates to the racing track, etc. Racecourses are authorised by the Authority under section 59 and this relates to all facilities at the racecourse, including accommodation for bookmakers, betting offices, punters and the public. It is vital for the future of the industry that all racecourses have appropriate facilities to service their customers. This point was made by several Senators during the course of the debate. In those circumstances it is therefore essential that if the Authority is to develop the industry it must have a role in the authorisation of racecourses so that it can ensure as far as possible that facilities are up to current day standards.
Amendment No. 16 is not moved. Amendment No. 17 envisages openended authorisation unless a racecourse ceases to comply with published or specified requirements. Two or more suspensions for this purpose would lead to revocation of the authorisation. I do not see the need for this system, but I see the need in the current climate for spectators, who are looking for better facilities, and for horse owners and trainers, whose needs are changing. Every racecourse should be reviewed at least every five years. It is not intended to use this provision to close down or impede smaller racecourses. Some Senators expressed fears in this regard during the Second Stage debate. I do not see this happening in practice. I see this review period being used to ensure that the facilities provided at racecourses are kept up to the standard which the public are entitled to expect when they go racing. Nothing more or less is required.
As we know, some racecourse managements go to tremendous lengths to ensure that the racegoing public, the owners and the trainers have proper facilities. I know owners who find it difficult to take horses to certain courses because the stabling is inadequate. A couple of years ago in Killarney horses broke out of their boxes and went all over the place. If I recall correctly, Mr. Jim Bolger had to take his horses back to Kilcullen. They did not race at a meeting that day or any other day. There is a requirement to have adequate facilities and a review every five years to ensure that a certain standard is reached for the racecourse, trainers and horses,
As regards amendment No. 17, racecourses should be reviewed at least every five years. I consider that the ten years suggested in the amendment is too long a duration to leave a racecourse without some review. For that reason, I oppose the amendments.
I understand what the Minister said about amendment No. 15, but I continue to make the point about amendment No. 17. If racecourse owners embark on a substantial capital development, they need to be sure that the licence is for ten years, particularly if they are to operate in reasonable conditions. If they have a licence for only five years, the bank manager may not lend them money for seven years.
We are creating an additional layer of bureaucracy. We are now saying that the racing regulatory body is the licensing body for racecourses. That amendment was introduced by the Minister in the Dáil and I welcome it, because it is important that the racing regulatory body is the licensing authority. However, in addition to the licensing of the racecourse, we now have an authorisation, which is a layer above the licensing body. Does this mean the racing regulatory body could licence a racecourse but the Authority will not authorise it? What is the difference between an authorisation and a licence?
Racecourses should be reviewed every five years. In the course of everyday activities, for example, if one is looking for a driving licence, there is a requirement to review matters so that things are not left in place for too long. In most instances racecourse management ensure that facilities are kept up to the highest standards. It is reasonable that a review, and it is nothing other than a review——
The Bill does not say a review, but an authorisation.
The racecourses will be authorised in the first instance, but then a five year review will take place after that. That is reasonable and it should not affect people's financial requirements. In some instances there should be a stringent review. I was at a race meeting recently and a number of horses had to be put down because the standard of the track was so bad. That was not the official reason given, but the track was not up to the required standard from the animals' point of view. In some cases before one enters the racecourse, one needs to wear wellingtons to get as far as the turnstiles. If the sport and the industry is to flourish, which we all want it to, certain reasonable standards must apply. The requirement to have a review every five years is reasonable. For this reason I cannot accept the amendments.
I must bow to the Minister. His tour of the racecourses of Ireland has convinced me of his argument. He has visited a number of them in the past hour and a half and I hope we will visit the remainder before the end of the debate. I am impressed by the Minister's knowledge of all the racecourses throughout the country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.
Section 59 agreed to.
Sections 60 to 74, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 75.
Question proposed: "That section 75 stand part of the Bill."
Senator Cosgrave raised a point about staff. Every person who is on the day immediately before the establishment day a member of the staff of the Racing Board or, a subsidiary of it, shall, on the establishment day, be transferred to and become a member of the staff of the Authority, or a subsidiary of it, as the Authority may determine. There is no difficulty in relation to existing staff.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 76 and 77 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are consequential on amendment No. 18 and amendment No. 22 is related. All may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 39, paragraph 2, line 42, to delete "15" and substitute "17".
The intention behind the amendment is to increase the number on the Authority. Although it appears that most interests are represented, some are doubly and trebly represented. The horse trainers, in particular, have a representative from the short list and the Minister is also entitled to nominate one. Many of these interests are more than adequately represented. Perhaps the Minister could tell me why a member of the Jockeys Association was not included. Jockeys are an integral part of the system. Their lot at times is difficult, because the Pat Edderys, the Michael Kinanes and the Charlie Swans are in the minority. Many jockeys have a short life span, particularly those involved in National Hunt racing. They need to get everything they can, including a jockeys benevolent fund. Their lot must be looked after. I am not saying that some of the members on the Authority will not show concern for them. However, I wonder what liaison is going to take place. They seem to be the obvious missing link.
This brings me to amendment No. 21. I do not know what has gone on in relation to the members from Northern Ireland. The Minister's Northern Ireland counterpart set up a committee of five to select a person and the name of Mr. Jim Nicholson was forwarded, but in the course of the race for the Authority he seems to have become unseated and has been withdrawn. This has not been clarified and there is a case now to be made to right the wrong and include this individual on the Authority. The Minister has said that he knows him and is aware of his great ability. There is concern that the Minister's original list was changed.
I ask the Minister to take these two issues on board. I do not know what consideration was given to having jockeys represented. You would not go too far in horse racing if you did not have a jockey on board. There is a case to be made for clarifying the position of the representative of the Northern Ireland horse racing industry nominated for appointment by the committee established by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to respond positively to this matter. He has not given us much today. He might consider giving us something.
I also find it very curious that Mr. Nicholson is not a member of the Authority. I do not know anything of the credentials of the lady who has taken that place. There was a general expectation that Mr. Nicholson would be the person from Northern Ireland who would become a member of the Authority. I find what has happened very surprising and I would be interested in the Minister's comments on it.
I would not be in favour of increasing the membership of the Authority from 15 to 17 as proposed by Senator Cosgrave, because the Authority is almost too big as it is and it would become very unwieldy if it was any bigger. To that end I tabled amendment No. 22, which would reduce from four to three the number of people chosen by the Minister. The Authority is big enough and it could with effect be smaller. I am very reluctant to grant the Minister a large block of votes in any body of this nature. This is not a comment on the Minister personally, it is a comment on any Minister. As a matter of principle it is undesirable that the Minster's representatives should be dominant within a body established under statue.
I welcome the fact that an amendment was made to introduce a representative of racegoers onto the body. Because an extra person is being included at that level, we should reduce the four that the Minister has the power to include, although one of those is a representative of the horse racing industry in Northern Ireland. My original intention was to propose that the number of the Minister's nominees be reduced from four to two, but given that one of them is a representative of the horse racing industry in Northern Ireland, I would be satisfied with reducing the number to three.
I question whether it is possible for this Legislature to compel the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture to establish a committee. We could possibly ask them, but I do not know what effect our law would have in terms of making them responsible for forming a committee which would select a representative from Northern Ireland.
Amendments No. 18, 20 and 21 would have the effect of increasing the Authority by a further two places. This would mean an authority consisting of 18 members. That would be too large and cumbersome.
Jack Charlton has 22 and they are still winning.
I wish them luck on Monday night.
I was originally reluctant to have as many as 16 on the Authority but found that this was necessary to achieve the balance of interests which I wanted. I do not want to see a cartoon in the next issue of a prestigious publication showing a very substantial queue lining up for the first meeting of the new Authority.
In relation to amendments No. 20 and 21, jockeys do not need to have special representation on the Authority. Any or all of the members of the Authority represent the interests of jockeys at appropriate times when matters relating to them are being discussed. Members of the governing bodies and others such as owners and trainers will have special roles to play in relation to jockeys. I have had requests from owners that they should have more members on the Authority. I know all the members of the Authority and virtually all of them are owners as well as representing other sectors of the industry.
Representation of the industry in Northern Ireland is provided for by direct appointment. The situation regarding who or which body would be best suited to making nominations in relation to Northern Ireland interests can change from time to time and rather than rely on one nomination, I felt it was necessary to have the system by which I would select the person to represent the industry in Northern Ireland open. Very few would argue with the choice that has been made. People have made comments about the person appointed and in most cases preface their remarks by saying they do not know the person concerned.
As I explained already, a number of requirements had to be fulfilled. There is a requirement of balance as between different sectors and interests in the industry. There was also a gender balance requirement. Very few would argue against including five women in a State authority of 16 persons. Racecourses are adequately represented, not alone by their chairperson but also by two other managers of racecourses. I had the difficult job of selecting people to give balance in regard to gender and the different sectors of the industry. I stand over my appointment. I know Mr. Nicholson and wish to put on the record of the House the very fine job he has done for the industry in Northern Ireland and in particular the modernisation and upgrading of Down Royal racecourse.
I said that I would be specifically asking the new Authority to take the Northern Ireland end of the industry into account and to give it special attention because it falls between two stools. I said earlier that I was at Down Royal some time ago. There were six races at that meeting and the total prize money was £12,500. In other words, there was a purse of £2,000 per race with £2,500 for the main race of the day. By and large, our prize money is far in excess of that paid there, so I would like the new Authority to give special attention to the industry in Northern Ireland.
I have to have regard for overall balance and there are some constraints on me. Overall, the Authority consists of people with not only a national but an international reputation. We have in this country some fine, astute trainers, for example, and we have a tremendous tradition of training horses. Mr. Vincent O'Brien must be one of the all time great trainers in the world, as was the late Mr. Tom Draper in the National Hunt scene. We have at present a new crop of trainers who are internationally recognised and——
Yes, Vintage Crop in the Melbourne Cup; I was not on it but I was pleased to hear a recording from Melbourne on "Morning Ireland". That did a tremendous amount for the racing industry in Ireland and generally for Irish professionalism. A number of other international events were won by Irish horses. The Belmont Stakes——
I like the Minister's highlights.
The Minister is drifting; he is not keeping in a straight line.
When it comes to the back stretch I need the rails.
He is riding well but must keep a straight course.
He must not raise his arm over his shoulder.
We have a great deal to be proud of in the racing industry. In some sports we can reach the international heights but in some others we have not been able to do so. I am really drifting at this stage, but an example of that is tennis. It is amazing that we have never been able to figure in tennis whereas in many other sports we can do so. Perhaps we will breed a Wimbledon winner in due course.
In amendment No. 22 Senator Dardis proposes reducing the number of people the Minister may appoint directly from four to three. Excluding the representative from Northern Ireland, this would reduce the Minister's direct appointments from three to two. Any reasonable person would have to accept that on an Authority comprising 16 members the Minister of the day should be allowed to appoint at least three out of the 16. It is absolutely essential if he or she is to be given any opportunity to try to achieve the balances necessary.
I would rely on some of the good advice given to me by a former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, in his contribution in the Dáil on this matter. He said that if there was one element he disagreed with, it was the system of nominating bodies and that in his experience —and he was Minister for over four years —the worst board over which he had to preside was Bord na gCapall. He eventually had to abolish it; it was the world's worst and it was comprised totally of nominated people. He suggested that any Minister of the day worth his or her salt would appoint the Authority or the board and stand over it. If it was good the Minister could claim credit and if it was in any way useless he or she would have to accept responsibility.
That is what the Minister did.
At the behest of Deputy Deasy.
I was glad to have an input. Around two thirds of the revenue going into this industry is contributed by the taxpayer — the people we are elected and appointed to represent — and on those grounds we are entitled to have that degree of input. Therefore, I oppose amendments Nos. 18, 20, 21 and 22.
With regard to amendment No. 21, did any discussions take place between the Department and its Northern Ireland counterpart on this matter? Was there a communication made that their nominee should be made before or subsequent to the Minister making the decision?
I made the point yesterday that it was difficult enough getting the different sectors of the industry here into one paddock, but when it came to the North I was further constrained. As Senator Dardis pointed out, I could not compel any authority or agency there to do anything for me. It was an ad hoc arrangement whereby certain names were put forward. There was no official nominating body in the area so I was left to have regard for the general balance and was constrained by gender balance and the balance of the different sectors of the industry represented on the Authority. I am satisfied that a reasonable choice was made in that regard.
Has it been decided what, if any, remuneration members of the Authority will receive and has anything been put in place in that regard — apart from the odd tip, that is?
The Minister will have to get those first.
I can confirm that this new Authority will be no place for expenses junkies. There are no expenses. I put on the record of the Houses my appreciation, and that of many others, of the people concerned who for many years have given of their own time, expertise and capability in various sectors of the industry for nothing but the love of the industry and the sport. There are no expenses whatsoever. This Authority is not a good place for the average county councillor.
Apart from a little inside information on how the going might be——
——or as to how a particular horse might be measuring up for a race, there is no remuneration whatsoever. There is not even the usual nominal statutory sum of £500 or whatever it is; there will be some out of pocket expenses which will be closely monitored. The people are volunteering to do something on behalf of the State and the sport and great credit is due to them for that.
The chairman is allowed some expenses, but it is a good principle that these people act on a voluntary basis. They are to be congratulated that they are prepared to put in so much time and effort on a voluntary basis but it is a long established tradition in the sport. The members of the Turf Club are to be congratulated that over the years not only did they do their job in a voluntary capacity, but they also contributed funds; and some of them are substantially out of pocket due to their commitment to the sport. The Authority might have a significant effect on the starting price at some race meetings.
Question: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 23 is related to amendment No. 19 and they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No 19:
In page 40, paragraph 4, line 1, to delete "The Minister may" and substitute "The Authority may by a simple majority of all its members".
These two amendments relate to the power the Minister has in respect of dismissing people. Paragraph (4) of the Schedule states that: "The Minister may at any time remove the chairman from office", and paragraph (12) states that: "The Minister may at any time remove an ordinary member of the Authority from office". The Minister talked about the various bodies who had nominating powers to the Authority and the need for balance in the Authority, and I would agree with him. If they have the power to put forward a representative for inclusion in the Authority, then allowing the Minister to remove the chairman or a member of the Authority from office without significant grounds for doing so is to confer on the Minister a power which is not appropriate. It should be left to the Authority to vote no confidence in a member. It should be the vehicle by which people who have lost the confidence of the Authority might lost office. Suppose there is a change of Government, it leaves it wide open to the incoming Minister to get rid of some of those it may regard as enemies. That is bad for the interests of the industry. There must be continuity in the way the Authority operates. That would be a priority which I am sure the Minster would accept.
If a steward at the Turf Club or the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee is a person the Minister decides should be dismissed from the office of the Authority, does he cease to be a steward of the racing regulatory body, the Turf Club or the Irish National Hunt Committee? He could find himself in an impossible position. A person may not be a member of the Authority while remaining a steward of the Turf Club. If the senior steward of the Turf Club was dismissed from the Authority, would he automatically cease to be senior steward of the Turf Club? That would also cause untold chaos if it arose.
In response to amendments Nos. 19 and 23, the chairman plays a key role in the affairs of any organisation, especially in an authority like the Irish Horseracing Authority. In such a case, the Minister of the day is effectively delegating certain major responsibilities on that industry to a chairman and a full board. That is why he, in the final analysis, appoints a chairman. If he is unhappy with their performance, he must be able to remove that chairman if he feels it is necessary. This would only happen under extreme and exceptional circumstances. Of course, the laws of natural justice would come into play. If a Minister appointed a chairman and disagreed with him for a certain reason, there would be good grounds for him to take a case claiming that his reputation was destroyed and was reduced by this effective dismissal. This is only a precautionary measure.
In an association like the Irish Horseracing Authority, the chairperson of the day has an extremely important role. Being a semi-State body, it must do its job properly and correctly. If for any reason that does not happen over a period of time, this section would be appropriate to deal with it, but it would only be used in extreme and exceptional circumstances and the laws of natural justice would apply. For that reason, I oppose both amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 40, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following paragraph:
"(—) one shall be representative of jockeys nominated for appointment thereto by the Jockeys Association.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 40, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following paragraph:
"(—) one shall be representative of the Northern Ireland horseracing industry nominated for appointment by the Committee established by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 22 has already been discussed with amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 42, lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraph 12.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister and his officials for the way they have dealt with this legislation. I especially thank the Minister for the way he answered the questions raised.
We all wish the industry well. I hope this legislation achieves the effect I know the Minister seeks. He has the interest of the sport and the industry at heart. It is a tremendous national resource and it should be managed efficiently. I wish the members of the incoming Authority well.
I join with Senator Dardis in wishing the legislation, the Authority and its members well; I know many of them personally. They will, with a little luck and guidance, deliver the goods. All we are missing now is a couple of winners.
On behalf of this side of the House, I congratulate the Minister for bringing this legislation through both Houses and wish the Authority well. The Minister has the respect of the horseracing industry. The composition of the Authority has been fairly balanced.
I appreciate Senators' contributions which were made in the best interests of the industry and from a background of interest and knowledge. It is tremendous that there is such a degree of interest in both Houses in what is essentially a sport but also an industry. Some 25,000 people derive their livelihood and income from this industry. It is an industry with tremendous potential. There are no seasonal or quota constraints of any kind; it is a growing leisure activity.
The Bill benefited from the contributions made to its formulation. It is my intention that the support, including the financial support about which so much concern was expressed, will be made available to the industry.
On the issue of the new Authority, I express my appreciation to those organisations which submitted names, to those who accepted membership of the Authority, because there is no remuneration of any kind, and to those who served on the various groups and committees. Such people have jobs and occupations to pursue, yet they spent an enormous amount of time going through the proposed provisions of the Bill in fine detail. Following a meeting I met one of them and he told me that if he was ever again to hear the words "may" or "shall", and which of the two was to be decided upon, he would go mad. These people deserve our appreciation, and I wish to put it on the record of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
It is proposed to suspend the sitting of the House until 2.30 p.m. and to resume with the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill, 1994. Notwithstanding the agreement on the Order of Business, it is proposed to take only Second Stage of the Bill today.
Acting Chairman
Sitting suspended at 2 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
