When will the new sports council be established? Section 4 states that the Minister shall appoint a day to be the establishment day for the council. Does he intend to make appointments soon after the enactment of the legislation or will they be made at a later date?
Irish Sports Council Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Following a Bill's passage into law, it takes an average of six weeks for it to undergo the required obligations. I hope to establish the council on a statutory basis by approximately 1 July.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(a)to exercise the functions of the Minister in relation to the disbursement of National Lottery funds,".
This amendment was tabled in the Dáil and it is being tabled here because the Bill is very important in terms of placing the promotion, co-ordination and development of recreational and competitive sport on a statutory footing. We believe the Minister should be given as broad a compass as possible which should extend to funding and the distribution of funds in addition to the promotion of sport.
It is difficult to promote and develop something unless one has access to major funding. At present, national lottery moneys represent the major element of the funding invested in sport. The amendment is not intended to cast reflections on the Minister and I am sure his distribution of funds will be above reproach. Originally the distribution of lottery funds was the preserve of local authorities, but the power to distribute those funds was removed from local authorities by one of the Minister's predecessors, Commissioner Padraig Flynn, and it became a ministerial preserve.
The Bill represents the appropriate mechanism by means of which responsibility for distributing national lottery funding should be transferred to a publicly accountable and statutory body such as the sports council, which would be the appropriate organisation to disburse major capital investment funds for sport. Local authorities would have been my preferred choice for disbursing such funding in the past because they are aware of the local requirements. The ministerial model would have been the less preferable choice. The new forum has the specific function of developing sport in all its forms and the disbursement of national lottery funds should be brought within its compass.
As a local authority member, I cannot recall disbursing national lottery funds. I agree with the thrust of the section because, in terms of the bigger picture, there may be situations where adjoining local authorities might be spending money in the same area. As it stands, the section requires that specific applications for funding must be made and these will then be considered by the council and the Department.
I cannot recall that local authorities were ever given power to disburse national lottery funding. I do recall that they were given the power to prioritise applications in their areas but, unfortunately, the local authorities merely took note of and forwarded them to the Department of Education. This matter was not prioritised and it has ended up in my Department.
We are setting up a new statutory sports council. The provision for the function in the Senator's amendment is encompassed by the Bill. I want to leave the Bill as general as possible. I do not want to tie the hands of a future Government by inserting the mechanism proposed by the Senator. As the Bill stands, it is open to a future Government to include an amendment such as that tabled by the Senator. That can be done at any time.
As this will be a new statutory body, I appeal to the Senator to ensure we walk before we leap. We should deal with these issues one by one, on a step by step basis. Public representatives have handed far too much authority to other bodies and I regret it. Local authorities have been denuded of power by various legislation over the years.
Sections 6 to 9 establish the policy framework within which the council will operate and provide it with the scope to allocate funding through a wide range of schemes and programmes within its existing functions. As representatives elected by the public we should be very careful about what we do in the future because authority has been handed over to various councils in the past and that has been a matter of some regret.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Can I take it from what the Minister said that it would not require an amendment to facilitate the disbursement of lottery funding in the context of this legislation?
That is correct. A future Government can make that decision.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2, in the name of Senator Costello, is related to amendment No. 4 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (1)(b), line 12, after "bodies" to insert "in particular educational bodies".
This amendment proposes that emphasis should be put on educational bodies. Public authorities and publicly funded bodies are included as important in terms of the development of strategies, participation, co-ordination and implementation. A theme running through most of my amendments is that one cannot emphasise enough the role of educational facilities and educational bodies in sport for all ages and at all levels. There are vocational education committees with subcommittees that deal specifically with sport, its funding and the promotion of sport for all. We may not emphasise the area which should be emphasised if educational bodies are excluded in this context and public authorities and publicly funded bodies are included.
I tabled this amendment to ensure it would clear to the council that educational bodies should be deeply involved in its work and the strategies it will develop. Amendment No. 4 proposes the inclusion of a new paragraph which would promote and develop participation in recreational and competitive sports in schools and colleges and promote schools and colleges as major centres for sport in the community.
On Second Stage the Minister referred to an overlap of facilities in many communities – they may have an educational facility with a sports hall but they seek other facilities which are capital intensive and expensive. A national plan for recreational and competitive sports should be community based with the schools at the centre of the community. This would prevent an overlap of facilities and provide the best national infrastructure. If it were pursued, resources would be used in a more valuable fashion and greater use of schools would be ensured. It is often the case that schools are only open five days per week for certain hours. There is no reason for not opening them at weekends for recreational and competitive sports because they have the required facilities in many cases.
The other side of the coin is that due attention has not been given to the provision of training personnel and skilled physical educators in our schools. Many schools are deprived of youth trainers and it is a pity that every school does not have a sports instructor. Ireland has one of the lowest levels of youth participation in sports. That might seem surprising, given that Ireland has a considerable international record, but our facilities are weak and a limited number of people have been appointed to work with young people in recreational and competitive sports.
I make a plea for greater attention to be paid to this area. That cannot be achieved unless the Minister incorporates an amendment which specifically concentrates the council's attention on schools and colleges as an integral part of the community where sporting activity can be promoted.
I support Senator Costello's remarks. It is an opportune time to raise this issue because yesterday's newspapers reported that Mr. David Blunkett, the British Secretary of State for Education and Employment, will announce a change in the curriculum on Thursday. The Minister supports fully what Senator Costello is trying to achieve.
The belief is that the effort to overcome literacy and numeracy problems has been so concentrated that other aspects of children's development have been neglected. Sport is one of the areas which has sometimes been neglected. Senator Costello is attempting to mark the cards of future sports councils and remind them of this. Mr. Blunkett's objective is that schoolchildren will receive two hours of physical exercise per week. This Bill, when enacted, will remain in operation for a long time. We are thinking of those sports councils who in the future will have their cards marked by reference to the need for education being recognised in this area.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert the words "in particular educational bodies". Subsection (b) refers to publicly funded bodies. Educational bodies are publicly funded. Senator Costello referred to the use of school facilities for recreational purposes at weekends. School facilities are being made available to the community to a greater extent than before. In some cases the only inhibitions to schools allowing communities to use their facilities relate to insurance. That has been a major problem in certain areas but it is being overcome. There is no doubt that promotion and development in sport has been exceptional in terms of what has happened in various schools. There have been changes in participation levels in schools because of the way in which the educational system, particularly in rural areas, has been developing. With the closure of boarding schools children now go home immediately after classes and are no longer forced, through boredom etc., to participate in sports.
There is no great problem with the intent of the amendment. Perhaps the inclusion of public authorities among those required to co-ordinate the promotion of recreational sport and facilities might meet with Senator Costello's point.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senators. I am not rejecting the amendment for the sake of it, I feel it is unnecessary. The amendment seeks to include the words "in particular educational bodies". I have not included or specifically referred to national governing bodies of sport but that does not mean they have no interest in sport.
The Bill provides the council with the necessary functions and power in sections 6(1)(b) and 7(2)(a) to allow them to work in co-operation with any public authority. A "public authority" is defined in the interpretation section and specifically mentions public bodies which have traditionally been involved both directly and indirectly in the support and promotion of sport. The council is empowered to work with the Department of Education and Science and, through it, with all educational bodies. Moreover, under the new sports capital programme and in line with the recommendations of the review group, applicants are required to consult with other clubs and community groups, including schools with sport and recreational facilities in their areas and the local authority, before making an application for funding and to show the outcome of such consultations. The purpose is to ensure that regard is had to identifying the needs of an area and that the proposed development does not result in overlap with and/or duplication of existing facilities.
I have sent the Sports Capital Review report to select committee which will discuss matters such as whether funding is from national lottery funds or from the sports council. That matter and others which have arisen here will be discussed by the select committee.
The Minister has said everything is encompassed by "all bodies" and the sports capital review specifically states in its criteria that consultation will take place with schools and local authorities. However, the fault is that it is not specified in the legislation. This Bill is, for the first time, providing for the functions of the Irish Sports Council. It is always better to have something in legislation rather than in the direction or criteria drawn up – if it is in the legislation, one knows the body must pay particular attention to it. If, as the Minister has agreed, the educational aspects and facilities of sport are key elements in the development and promotion of sport, the Bill should mention the educational aspect. It is not mentioned or specified in any form. It would be appropriate.
The Bill refers to public authorities – which are generally local authorities – and publicly funded bodies. Educational bodies have traditionally had the function of promoting sport and disbursing funds for sport. They are at least on a par with local authorities in terms of the work they have done in promoting sport. There have been other aspects on the educational side.
Will the Minister address amendment No. 4 by inserting a specific paragraph, as distinct from inserting the proposal in amendment No. 2? How would he respond to a paragraph which embraced recreational and competitive sports in the school and college environment?
I have been trying to make clear to the Senator that the word "bodies" is all-encompassing. I mentioned on Second Stage, and I agree with Senators Quinn and Costello, that PE as we used to know it has been accorded little or no priority because, as Senator Costello mentioned, other areas of education have been considered more important. We have seen – I also mentioned this on Second Stage – the correlation between dropping PE in schools and a corresponding rise in drug use and other problems. It is a very important element. I remind the Senator that my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, is working adding PE to the leaving certificate curriculum. There is already ongoing co-operation between our Departments. Within the scope of this Bill, the Sports Council is empowered to co-operate with the Department of Education and Science on these aspects.
With regard to amendment No. 4, in pursuit of the policy objective of developing strategies to increase participation in sport, my Department has agreed with the Department of Education and Science to launch an initiative which will involve the Irish Sports Council, the Department of Education and Science and the National Coaching and Training Centre, which is designed to help schools increase participation in sport and physical education. The Department of Education and Science is already piloting a new physical education curriculum. There are already plans in place to launch this initiative of the two Departments, the NCTC in Limerick and the sports council which is specifically geared to the educational bodies. This is an ongoing initiative between the sports council and the NCTC.
The amendments are unnecessary at this stage because there is co-operation between all these areas. I assure the Senator that I consider the educational aspect to be vitally important to the future of sport.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (1)(b), line 13, after "facilities," to insert "for all ages and for both sexes,"
These amendments seek to ensure that the all-embracing nature of the legislation extends to people of all ages and both sexes and that it recognises the importance of sport for the elderly and for people with disabilities. It is an attempt to improve the legislation so that the council will be in a position to ensure that local authorities and publicly-funded bodies will not neglect any sector or category of the population. For this reason it is desirable to add an addendum to ensure that these categories of people are not forgotten. The reason for tabling the previous amendments was to focus people's attention on areas of importance. It is equally important to remind people that it would be very easy, given the over-emphasis on the competitive nature of sport, to totally forget the disabled, the elderly and the very young. The amendments seek to strike a balance and ensure that competitive and recreational sport is open to everyone and that everyone is given a fair opportunity to take advantage of whatever resources or facilities are available as a result of this legislation.
I accept that amendment No. 3 is fairly broad. However, if I were to accept amendment No. 8 which seeks to promote increased participation in sport by the elderly and by people with disabilities, it would be a contradiction in terms. By specifying these specific areas, other groups could point to sectors not included, such as women, youths and disadvantaged areas. Section 9 requires the council to have regard to Government policy in carrying out its functions and to comply with policy directives issued by the Minister. As one of the cornerstones of its policy, the Government has committed itself to establishing a fully inclusive society whereby every citizen will have the opportunity and incentive to participate fully in the social and economic life of the country. The Government is also committed to this issue in the new equal status Bill.
The Senator's amendment is too specific in that it excludes some groups. Under section 9 the council must comply with Government policy which favours a more inclusive and equitable society.
The Minister and I disagree totally on the relevance of this section. I thought the purpose of the section was to focus on what the council should do which is to ensure that no section of the population is omitted and that no area is deprived of funding or facilities. Section 12(3) states that the composition of the council should not include fewer than three men or fewer than three women. In other words, the section specifically ensures gender-proofing. However, the Minister is not prepared to accept an amendment to section 6(1)(b) which states that all ages and both sexes will be fairly represented. Experience tells us it does not matter if we have equal status legislation because there is, and has been, an in-built bias against certain sectors of the community, particularly women and the disabled. These people have not got a fair deal in society in the past and this is why the Bill should provide for gender-proofing in the composition of the council.
The Bill should be equally specific and ensure that all ages and both sexes are included. This would not specify anyone in particular but would ensure that the entire population is equally covered under the functions of the council. I do not know whether it is sufficient to say that this is covered by Government or ministerial policy. Policy should be encompassed in legislation but if the provisions encompassing policy are not included, then broader elements of policy may not be covered. We need to look at the areas that have been neglected to date and ensure that they will not be neglected in the future. We must also look at areas of education which have been neglected and which would be an ideal forum for major educational, recreational and competitive sporting development.
My amendments are in this context. I know the Minister is kicking to touch, as it were, and saying that my amendments are encompassed in the Bill. This may be the case but there is nothing in the legislation to ensure that recreational and competitive sport is focused on all sections of the population. This has not been the case in the past and local authorities and other publicly-funded bodies have not focused on these areas. This is improving but it should be put on a statutory footing.
I introduced the new application forms for the national governing bodies. In order for them to maximise their funding, I have asked that they seek to increase the participation of young people, women and people with disabilities as part of the development of their organisation. This is stated in the application forms which the national governing bodies produce each January. If they wish to maximise their allocation, they must include these people. Under the current sports council a special sub-committee, the task force on people with a disability in sport, has been set up. There is another sub-committee of the sports council known as the task force on women in sport and I am awaiting its report which is due in the next few weeks. The areas mentioned by the Senator were already dealt by my predecessor and the sports council also has these facilities.
When I came into office I made three initiatives my priority – a pilot programme for disadvantaged areas, the drugs initiative and a follow up on the young people's facilities and services fund, which the Senator praised last week. That fund amounted to £20 million. When we discovered there was a £4.8 million overrun, we decided with the Department of Finance that, rather than take the overrun from the £20 million, the fund should be increased to £24.8 million.
The areas mentioned by the Senator are either included already or I am awaiting reports from the sports council. The areas of particular concern are being attended to by the attentive people on the sports council.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c)to promote and develop participation in recreational sport and competitive sport in schools and colleges and to promote schools and colleges as major centres for sport in the community,"
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 are cognate to amendment No. 5 and amendments Nos. 9 and 12 are related. Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 10, 12 and 13 can be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (1)(c), line 16, to delete "either or".
This series of amendments is intended to improve the legislation. It should be a function of the legislation to promote good conduct and fair play in both competitive and recreational sport. I do not see the reason for including "either or". Good conduct and fair play are requirements for both types of sport. It should, therefore, be a function of the council, without qualification. The phrase is tautologous. It also appears to imply that there can be something less than good conduct and fair play in one type of sport or the other. Some of the other amendments also seek the deletion of the phrase "either or" where it appears elsewhere in the section. The same principle applies in those cases.
I also seek to delete the phrase "where the council considers it appropriate to do so". It appears in subsection (1)(e) –"to initiate and encourage research concerning either or both competitive sport and recreational sport". I seek to delete the phrases "either or" and "where the council considers it appropriate to do so". A function of the council should not be qualified in that fashion. It is not qualified in subsection (1)(a) which states: "To encourage the promotion, development and co-ordination . . . ". That is not subject to the council considering it appropriate to do so.
The phrase "where the council considers it appropriate to do so" is tautologous and introduces a caveat that does not appear in the other functions. Is it not proper that subsection (1)(e) should read: "The functions of the council shall be . . . to initiate and encourage research concerning both competitive and recreational sport". Obviously, the council will determine the quantity of research and development it will carry out just as it will determine the type of strategies or promotion it will adopt. Why include these two strange caveats in the last two paragraphs when they are not in the first two?
The legislation would be tidier and stronger if both clauses were deleted. The deletion would also ensure there would not be discrimination in terms of research, dissemination of information and initiation of research in relation to recreational sport. If the phrase "either or" is included, it means these things can be done for competitive sport but need not be done for recreational sport.
It does not.
That is how it can be interpreted. The phrases should be deleted so the same crack of the whip, if that is the right expression, can be given to both competitive and recreational sport.
In the Dáil I accepted three amendments dealing with recreational sport vis-à-vis competitive sport because there was concern that enough attention was not being given to recreational sport. The phrase “either or” should be retained because it gives the greatest flexibility. It gives the council more flexibility to deal with both areas rather than the provision being specific to either one or the other. I do not accept that the current wording means that recreational sport will necessarily be the poor relation of competitive sport.
The inclusion of the phrase "where the council considers it appropriate to do so" is regarded as necessary to ensure that the council retains the power to decide what research is most appropriate in the context of the dynamic environment in which sport now takes place, having regard to its own resources, strategic plans and national priorities. In this dynamic environment, the exercise of these research functions will, in all likelihood, place significant demands on the council and its resources. The proposed amendments, in removing the discretionary power of the council in respect of these functions, would have the potential to create an unnecessary, onerous burden in this regard.
I take the opposite view to the Senator's. I believe "either or" gives flexibility as opposed to the Senator's view that it in some way constrains the council.
The Minister and I will have to agree to differ. I believe it would be appropriate to put the burden on the council to ensure that research is encouraged and information disseminated. It should not depend on whether the council considers it appropriate to do so. The functions of the council should include the dissemination of information, encouraging research and initiating research. That does not limit the functions of the council but extends them.
I do not believe this puts an unnecessary and onerous burden on the council. It brings the provisions in the section into line with each other and says, in effect, that the council has these functions and will obviously exercise them, depending on the requirement to exercise them, to various degrees. Certain strategies will be determined. The council has authority and discretion to develop the strategies mentioned in section 6(1)(b). The section also includes the phrase "where the Council considers it appropriate to do so". It is the same for promotion and development. Why should that caveat be added at this stage? Why is the qualification "either or" included in this function of the council while other functions are presented in a straightforward fashion without any qualification?
If "either or" is deleted, it will decrease the flexibility of the council. I received a note from the Attorney General's office which states that during the drafting of these amendments the parliamentary draftsman's office advised that the absence of the phrase "either or" could be construed as meaning that research was to be carried out "concerning competitive sport and recreational sport but not in respect of only one of them". To prevent that possible argument being made, the parliamentary draftsman's office proposed that the words "either or both" be included in each function to allow the council to determine when the function should be exercised in relation to both categories at the same time or in respect of either categories separately. This approach is in keeping with the broad enabling approach that has been underpinned in the framing of the Bill. The council can make the decision to carry out research as regards both of them at once or separately.
I do not disagree with that. However, why is that the Attorney General's view on two of the provisions? Does that not extend to the other provisions? Where the council has a function to develop strategies, could the Attorney General not equally state that it should have discretion to determine what strategies are developed? Did the Attorney General express an opinion on the other functions the council must undertake?
That point has been argued. I introduced amendments in the Dáil with the specific purpose of ensuring that the council was not unduly focused in any area, such as competitive sport, and that the recreational area would not be seen as the poor relation. My advice from the parliamentary draftsman's office is that the Dáil amendments specifically deal with the Senator's concerns.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 11, 14 and 15 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 6, 11, 14 and 15 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, subsection (1)(c), line 16, to delete "competitive sport and recreational sport" and substitute "recreational sport and competitive sport".
We all agree that competitive sport and recreational sport are vitally important. There is a perceived imbalance in the Bill. It was interesting to listen to the Minister explain in the Dáil the steps he has taken to strike the right balance. Competitive sport is always mentioned first in the Bill, while recreational sport is always second. Competitive sport is glamorous and will always make the headlines. We should put recreational sport ahead of competitive sport in the Bill. The Minister may say that is putting the boot on the other foot, but that is not so because competitive sport will always get more attention.
This Bill will be on the Statute Book for a long time. We are trying to send a signal to future sports councils. They will not remember this Bill going through the two Houses or the words of the Minister but this change will remind them of the place of recreational sport. We made this case on Second Stage and I know the Minister is sympathetic to it. He mentioned that 90 per cent of sport is recreational, whereas competitive sport accounts for 10 per cent. Competitive sport will always get the headlines because it is glamorous. The Minister may accuse me of semantics but I am trying to strike the right balance. I urge him to accept this gesture as a signal to future sports councils to recognise the importance of recreational sport.
I support Senator Quinn. He said that 90 per cent of sport is recreational. However, that figure is closer to 95 per cent. It would be a pity if the legislation was passed with the emphasis on competitive sport. Recreational sport is for all ages and sexes, whereas competitive sport is limited to a few people. We should strike the right balance and outline policy in this legislation. If the policy is to give recreational sport its fair share of attention, as the Minister has indicated, then it is important that the legislation reflects the extent to which it dominates the sporting scene in every country. Why can the Minister not put recreational sport before competitive sport in the Bill?
I assure the Senators there is no significance in the fact that competitive sport comes before recreational sport. Senators mentioned the fact that 90 per cent of participants are involved in recreational sport. I will ask my officials to ensure that the Irish Sports Council is informed of the concerns expressed by the Senators so that it does not forget that more people are involved in recreational sport.
I am trying to get this Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas and I want it to be right. I have been criticised for delays because people do not understand how long it takes to get a Bill through the Houses. Were we at the drafting stage of Bill, it is possible I would have no problem accepting what has been mentioned by Senators. Given that the Bill has progressed to this Stage I cannot accept the amendments. However in my initial address to the sports council I can say it was mentioned here by both Senators.
I regard the wording in the Bill as the proper order. Sport is being referred to in alphabetical order. One can refer to something in alphabetical order without giving it prominence. Had the wording been the other way around I would have asked that it put in alphabetical order.
I must express my disappointment because I think what the Minister said – I hope I misunderstood him – is that we are wasting our time. Did I understand the Minister to say he would accept it but he wants to get this Bill through and, therefore, he will not accept any amendments?
No, I did not say that.
Those may not be the words the Minister used but I would be disappointed if I thought he said that. We are trying to improve the Bill. We are not tinkering without an objective. We are trying to make it into a Bill that will stand up and last. If the Minister is saying that because he wants to get it through both Houses he is unlikely to take amendments, then we are wasting our time. I was talking about future sports councils. When the sports council meets in a few months' time and is addressed by the Minister it will set off with all new enthusiasm, but future sports councils will not know have that.
This is a minor amendment. I am more worried if the Minister is saying in respect of all the other amendments, some of which are quite important, that we should not bother to debate them because he will not accept them. The reason we are here is to amend and improve the Bill. If amendments will be accepted, this one should be among them. If on the other hand the Minister is saying, which I hope he is not, that he has no intention of accepting any amendments that would be a message that we are wasting our time. I am sure the Minister did not say that but I have a sense that he said something like it. I hope I am incorrect.
It certainly was not intended. The Senator is an intelligent person. If there was some substance in the amendment I would be prepared to accept it. The Senator has already said there is no substance to the amendment but that it deals with perception. As Senator Moylan said, it should be referred to in alphabetical order. I did not wish to give the impression understood by Senator Quinn. The advice from the Department is that the Senator's concerns are unfounded. That he is able to propose amendments which include the phrase "recreation sport" is testament to that fact.
What needs to be appreciated is the way in which the Bill has derived the competitive and recreation sports categories from the Council of Europe definition of sport and has assigned specific functions, targeted at each, as well as functions which are addressed equally at both categories. It would have been easy to have left the Council of Europe definition intact and assigned functions which might have allowed the council to consign recreational sport to the back burner Instead, the Bill defines a category of "recreational sport". We have created the category in the Bill. I maintain that by so doing we are recognising recreational sport, as opposed to what the Council of Europe has in its pure definition of sport. We have included recreational sport.
The Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation recognises recreation for the first time. The Bill assigns specific functions which the council is obliged to carry out in relation to this category and to make the council accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas for the exercise of these functions. Far from making recreational sport the poor relation the inclusion of the word "recreational" in sport we are recognising 90 per cent of the people who participate in sport. I cannot go any further other than to say it will become a priority of the council. I have already said I would mention that that in my first address to the sports council.
There is a significance in the juxtaposition of words. If competitive sport is given pride of place throughout the legislation that gives the impression to the reader that it is the important element of sport to be concentrated on. This amendment does not propose to change the text but rather the order of the words. From a draftsperson's point of view is it possible to take on board this amendment, given that there is no change in wording, to change the order of the words and accept it without having to go back to the other House?
I am not sure what this argument is about. Nobody outside this Chamber is interested in whether competitive sport is mentioned before recreational sport. How does one define sport? Competitive sport, in the minds of many people, is when teams play each other or compete in events for which there are prizes. Any two children playing sport compete against each other. Competitive sport is where teams or individuals are competing for medals. In what is considered recreational sport, people do something for their own enjoyment. They are competing against themselves. They aim to do five laps of a track or if they are on a rowing machine they may be competing against themselves. This is recreational sport but it is competitive as well. Nobody outside the House would understand how an argument could develop on whether it should be "competitive sport and recreational sport" or "recreational sport and competitive sport". It does not make a whit of difference but the wording in the Bill would be acceptable to everybody who is involved in any area of sport.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, subsection (1)(d), line 18, after "in" to insert "competitive".
To answer Senator Lanigan's question about what is competitive and recreational sport, this is the area where one can at least indicate what might be competitive sport as distinct from recreational sport. Section 6(1)(d) reads: "to take such action as it considers appropriate, including testing, to combat doping in sport,". I propose the paragraph be amended to read: "to take such action as it considers appropriate, including testing, to combat doping in competitive sport,".
It is difficult to imagine doping in recreational sport. Doping is something which competitors engage in to enable them compete against each other to a higher level and succeed in competitive sport. If we are discussing distinctions in sport, it should be included. Part of the importance of recreational sport is that there have never been any instances or allegations of doping. The provision relates solely to competitive sport, which involves 5 per cent of the total number of people involved in sport. This should be stated in the Bill. The terms "recreational" and "competitive" have been included in other provisions. Why does this relate to all sport when it has never occurred, and is never likely to occur, in recreational sport?
The biggest indication that dope is being used is in recreational sport. More people in gymnasiums, participating in recreational sport, are using drugs than in competitive sport. I do not condone the use of drugs for any reason in the competitive area. However, men and women in gymnasiums who lift huge weights are on some sort of drug to enhance their body building capabilities. They are not engaged in competitive sport and only want to look better than others, although my view is that they begin to look horrible. The use of drugs in competitive sport arose from body building in gymnasiums. The drugs used by the big bodied hulks of men and women who competed in the Olympics in the past developed from drugs used in recreational sport. It is not that people in gymnasiums are using drugs because of what happened in competitive sport.
The provision is worded properly. Appropriate action must be taken to combat doping in sport and the provision relates to all sport. As Senator Lanigan said, competitive and recreational sport are involved and the Minister has got it right. The issue can be argued but we must ensure that doping is removed from all sport. This is covered by the provision as it stands. We can debate different phrases but the Minister and his officials have got it right. The provision should not be amended.
Doping in sport relates to all sport. It is synonymous with doping in competitive sport. The Senators are correct that we want to eradicate doping from all areas of sport. As Senators Lanigan and Moylan said, there are legitimate arguments to the effect that there is drug abuse in all sport. We would be naive to believe that it does not exist.
Doping in sport as defined in the interpretation section, which is section 2, has the same meaning as in Article 2 of the Council of Europe's anti-doping convention which Ireland signed in 1992. Article 2 defines the sportsmen and sportswomen to which all aspects of the convention, including its anti-doping provisions, apply as those "who participate regularly in organised sports activities". The convention and section 6(1)(d) are aimed specifically at the competitive sports category as defined in the Bill. In that category, it is defined as synonymous with doping in competitive sports.
It is mind boggling to think that the sports council will knock on the doors of gymnasiums throughout the country and check if banned substances are being used. Will the Minister clarify if that is envisaged? I was not aware that banned substances were being used in gymnasiums or that there had been an investigation in that regard. I doubt the Bill will lead to the establishment of a policing body which will traverse the country and check on various sports. As the Minister said, the Bill is specifically directed at competitive sports. The Minister should put on record that there is no substance to any allegation that gymnasiums in Dublin and elsewhere are engaged in prescribing banned substances to their members. Otherwise, it is a totally different matter and I was not aware that it was a function of the new sports council.
The Senator would be naive not to believe that a small number of gymnasiums, schools and others are participating in the use of enhancing drugs in certain areas. The Bill proposes that a mobile unit will traverse the country, but it will target areas where taxpayers' money is being spent and national governing bodies have received State funding for administrative purposes. All the national governing bodies who received State funding will be subject to testing no matter where they are located. For example, if the Dublin team, which is under the auspices of the Gaelic Athletic Association, is training in Parnell Park, the council has every right to send the mobile unit to test the team and the training section.
Does the Dublin team know that?
Yes.
This will apply across the board to teams all over the country. It will also apply to the broad spectrum of sports, including rugby, rowing and any other sport which receives State funding. They will be liable to testing and the national governing bodies of sport have welcomed this initiative. They are willing to participate in it and some of them have been more than co-operative in that they have already offered to be first in line for such tests.
Is it likely that mobile unit could be outside Croke Park for an All-Ireland final and that individual players who performed heroically on the day could be brought in for a drugs test?
That could happen.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister. Some prominent people who excel in their relevant sports have told me it is time that a level playing field was put in place. The only way to clean up this area and remove doping in sport is to ensure that people in any sport can be checked at any time regardless of whether it involves a training ground in the midlands, Dublin or Donegal.
In the context of the mobile unit being outside Croke Park, it has been shown that GAA players took drugs. One of the problems which emerged in the past two or three years was that a certain enhancing drug in the form of a liquid was used by schools playing rugby and gaelic games. I hope this drink will be taken off the market because if children start to think in terms of taking a substance to enhance their performance or build up their bodies in schools, undoubtedly they will be drawn into the drugs scene in sport. The Minister is correct. If public money is going towards a sport and one of its participants wishes to use drugs under no circumstances should he or she receive public money. Athletes have killed themselves and continue to kill themselves with drugs. Women and men have been unable to reproduce as a result of taking drugs for sports purposes. Some sportspeople use performance enhancing drugs. If they want to kill themselves, let them, but let us not pay for it. If the Olympic movement is to continue while sportspeople use drugs, they may do what they like but we will not fund it and we will have no part in it. This is what the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill.
It is quite possible for the mobile unit to be at, say, Croke Park on All-Ireland Final day to do post-match drug testing. Moreover, the unit can also do out of competition testing, which means it can be anywhere in the country at any time to attend a training session run by an organisation which is funded by the State. There is no room for drug taking in sport and, as Senator Lanigan said, there is no reason to give State funding to these organisations. If athletes wish to kill themselves that is a private decision but the State should not assist them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e)to promote increased participation in sport by the elderly and by people with disabilities,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, subsection 1(e), to delete "where the Council considers it appropriate to do so,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10;
In page 5, subsection 1(e), line 20, to delete "either or".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 5, subsection (1)(f), line 22, to delete "where the Council considers it appropriate to do so,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, subsection (1)(f), line 24, to delete "either or".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Question proposed "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
As to ethics standards in sport, I concur fully with Senator Lanigan's remarks about drugs. There is much to be worried about. Children watch the Worldwide Wrestling Federation, in which the only principle is to win at all costs. The wrestler waits until the referee is not looking and bashes his opponent with a lump of iron. It is quite funny to adults but I wonder what kind of lesson it provides.
The performance of the International Olympic Committee is disgraceful and I cannot understand how Mr. Juan Samaranch has been allowed to continue in his role. I call for his resignation; alternatively he should be removed from the IOC.
I have called for that for the last 10 years.
I support the Senator in that.
I was tempted to raise the following matter on the Order of Business last week but it would have been inappropriate because one is supposed to signal such an intention. It would be a pity if this House did not pay tribute to the late Lord Killanin. While we are on the subject of ethics, there was a man of uprightness and decency, who knew about sport and was passionately committed to it, who represented this country extraordinarily well on the IOC and showed his talents and skill as a diplomat when he almost single-handedly saved the Moscow Olympics in 1980 when there was severe danger of political interference. I hope the IOC can return to those standards and get out of its current mire, which involves not only drugs but bribery and all sorts of corruption. The whole thing stinks.
I laugh when I think of the IOC suing the Gay Games in the US Federal Courts to prevent it using the word "Olympic". Where does the IOC think the word came from in classical Greece? What did it think was being celebrated? Those people are illiterate and devoid of historical knowledge of the origin of the Olympic Games. They claim they do not want to be tainted by corruption, yet they are awash with drugs and bribes. Thank God the Gay Games is unpolluted by the apparent lack of ethics of Mr. Juan Samaranch and his gang of hoodlums and cowboys.
Senator Norris must not have read the reports of the Gay Games.
It would be a pity if this House did not pay tribute to a great Irishman, a decent western gentleman who reflected great credit on this country. We all mourn his passing.
I join the tribute to Lord Killanin, who was a great Irishman and a great sportsman, but his participation on the IOC leaves questions unanswered. It is only in the last five years that what happened at the IOC came into the public arena. Many Governments decided not to fund its activities unless it said what it was doing. Mr. Samaranch ran the IOC as a fiefdom for himself and the other committee members. There was no national election for membership of the IOC, members were selected and invited to join by Mr. Samaranch. The members were also from a much higher position in society than most participants in sport.
The IOC did not come into the open because it wanted to do so but because people were suspicious of what was happening. The Olympic system has suffered bribery and corruption for many years. Mr. Samaranch does not represent sport, he represents big money and the time has come to stop him. Sponsors are beginning to see the truth. Salt Lake City is finding it difficult to get money for the next Winter Olympics, and similarly, attempts to get sponsorship for the next Summer Olympics are failing dramatically because of the corruption which surrounds it. This may not be appropriate to the debate but Senator Norris raised the matter. I passed through Amsterdam earlier in the year when the Gay Games were held and I must state that there is no way some of the bodies on show in the various competitions were naturally produced. In my opinion gay athletes use the same kinds of drugs as other sports people.
I hope the Senator is not turning into a snake in the grass.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are cognate and all three may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 22, after "sponsorship" to insert, "as advised to the Council in writing from time to time by the Minister."
With regard to the Minister's earlier comments on competitive and recreational sport, I accept his assertions and have not pressed the relevant amendment.
The aim of amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 is to avoid the council's wasting time on pondering the nature of Government policy. It may surprise the Minister that the members of the general public are not often well informed on Government policy in respect of particular subjects. In certain instances they do not even know whether such a policy exists. In that context, I am concerned that the sports council might be overly cautious and waste valuable time in trying to identify what is Government policy.
Let us consider the instance of smoking. Everyone is aware of the Government's general policy in respect of smoking. However, I do not know the nature of Government policy regarding the sponsorship of sport by cigarette manufacturers and I am not sure if such a policy has been determined. This is an obvious example of the matter to which I refer but there may be many more obscure policies about which we are unsure. These amendments, therefore, represent an effort to place responsibility to inform the public about such policy on the shoulders of future Ministers and Governments.
I would like the sports council to be able to conform to Government policy and approach its work on that basis. Amendment No. 16 stipulates that the Minister should inform the council of the nature of Government policy on a regular basis, particularly as it would relate to the council's work. Everyone would then know where they stood and there would be no ambiguity or waste of time. I am seeking to encourage the Minister of the day to outline Government policy on a reasonably regular basis so that the council will not waste time. These amendments are tabled with the best will in the world and are designed to aid the council in its work.
In my opinion amendment No. 16 only adds an additional layer of bureaucracy to the system. For example, I deliver oral addresses to Bord Fáilte and the other bodies which fall under my Department's remit and I take it that they understand my comments to represent Government policy. Under the amendment, on each occasion I addressed the council I would be obliged to put my comments in writing which I believe would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the system.
With regard to smoking, the guidelines governing this area were outlined by the Minister for Health and Children. On a previous occasion in the House I stated that the sports council would be allowed to accept sponsorship from all quarters, with the exception of that offered by tobacco companies. I intend to reiterate that point to the council upon its establishment. However, the fact that I am making it here as Minister will make people aware of Government policy. As the Senator is aware, that is also the situation with regard to the European Commission. The Government believes that the use of tobacco advertising is not in keeping with its policy.
I do not know why I should be obliged to advise the council on matters before they become Government policy. I would like to believe that when I address the council my comments will be recorded and automatically taken as policy.
I accept the Minister's point and I will not press the amendment. However, we are discussing one Minister and one sports council when my aim was to encourage future Ministers to determine and declare Government policy on a regular basis. The Minister may be correct that when he addresses an organisation his comments can be taken as policy. In that context, I cannot foresee any Minister forgoing the opportunity to address a body such as the sports council.
I will not press the amendment but its acceptance would have been a useful reminder to future Ministers to ensure that they determined Government policy on a regular basis in order to aid the work of the sports council and ensure that time will not be wasted and that there will be no doubt or ambiguity. The council might decide to go against that policy and decide on a policy of its own. It would be useful and beneficial to the sports council, however, to be regularly notified about Government policy. I accept the Minister's statement that he does and will always do so on a regular basis but I would like to ensure that future Ministers would do so. The amendment was tabled with the intention of reminding Ministers of the onus of responsibility placed on them.
It is unfortunate the opportunities afforded to tobacco manufacturers to publicise their products have increased considerably because RTE has changed its attitude towards grand prix racing and is showing more races than heretofore. As a result, coverage of horse racing has been diminished. I accept that gardening is more of a recreation than a sport, but RTE has completely stopped showing gardening programmes, which were extremely popular and were watched by over 400,000 people, in order to invest further money in its coverage of grand prix racing which is nothing more than an excuse to advertise tobacco products.
I referred earlier to Juan Antonio Samaranch. In motor racing terms, Bernie Ecclestone dictates where grand prix tracks are built, what teams can compete and completely controls the sport. Grand prix racing is, therefore, controlled by one person, Bernie Ecclestone, who gave the British Labour Party between £2 million and £3 million last year. However, the Labour Party was later obliged to return the amount in full. Bernie Ecclestone controls Jordan, Ferrari and the other teams because he controls the tracks.
At a time when the Government and the health authorities are actively trying to discourage people from smoking, RTE is increasing the volume of money it spends on its coverage of motor racing. Representatives of the station welcome the opportunity to travel to Argentina and other countries to cover motor races rather than being obliged to travel to the Curragh or Tralee to cover horse races. Who is interested in grand prix racing, a sport which is basically designed to suit the interests of a number of car manufacturers, team leaders and Bernie Ecclestone?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 7, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) When appointing members of the Council, the Minister shall have regard, so far as is practicable, to the interests and experience of each member, so as to ensure that the overall membership of the Council shall broadly reflect the interests of both recreational and competitive sport".
I would not have been surprised if this amendment had been taken with the other amendments. I tabled this amendment to remind the Minister and future Ministers not to forget about recreational sport. We have covered this topic fairly well. I hope an effort will be made to strike a proper balance between recreational and competitive sport.
While recreational sport will not be instilled in the legislation in the way I would have liked, I hope future councils will ensure there is representation of the interests of recreational sport. I accept the Minister will give that signal to the initial council, which he will determine. It is more likely that a future Minister will appoint to a council representatives from sports that are more glamorous and attract the headlines, rather than representatives of recreational sports. I accept the Minister will ensure that representatives of the interests of recreational sports will be included on the initial council, but I would have liked the interests of recreational sports to be represented in the future.
I support the amendment. I was pleased with section 12(3) which provides that not fewer than three board members should be men and not fewer than three should be women. It is amazing that some gender proofing is included in a Bill and I am delighted to see it, but I have great sympathy for Senator Quinn's amendment. I believe the interests of the large competitive sports will be represented on the council. Sports such as hill walking, climbing and other activities that are no so well organised may not be represented on the council. While I am sure the Minister would ensure those interests are represented, it would be nice if we could be assured that future Ministers would be required to keep that in mind.
Membership of the interests of recreational and competitive sports on the council should be balanced equally. The Minister has not included any representative bodies in the Bill. A number of the important representative bodies from the amateur code or professional code which would nominate representatives would normally be included in this type of legislation. Will the Minister indicate which bodies will be represented on the council?
What is proposed in the Deputy's amendment is included in section 12(2) which states: "The members of the Council shall be appointed by the Minister and shall be persons who, in the Minister's opinion, have experience in a field of expertise relevant to the Council's functions." That encompasses recreational and competitive sports.
Senator Quinn said this matter was discussed in amendments addressed earlier. I am glad he is consistent in his philosophy and determination to ensure recreational sports are catered for.
I do not intend that the sports council will be representative members of various national governing bodies. I intend to make it as representative as possible. I will draw on men and women who have excelled in other areas of Irish society, whether in business, culture, media or the law. I intend its membership to be broad in that sense. We should not have specific people on the council just because they made a name for themselves in sport in the past. Some of those may be on the sports council, but I intend its membership will be drawn from the broad spectrum of people who have excelled in other areas of Irish society. There is a correlation in that many people who have been successful in sport have gone on to be very successful in business and vice versa. That is the way I intend to approach the composition of the sports council.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 37, to delete "four" and substitute "five".
My amendment deals with a matter of corporate governance. A quorum of four is too few on a council of this size. I appreciate the difficulties people have in attending meetings, but it would be a shame if decisions were reached by a meeting that was poorly attended. It comes down to a question of people being worried about a decision being reached by a non-representative body. I want to make corporate governance an issue in this context by proposing the quorum should be five rather than four. Six would be even better. I urge the Minister to consider a quorum of five rather than four to make sure that decisions are well supported.
The general rule of thumb is that the quorum of boards of companies should be one-third or one-third plus one. I do not see why that rule should be changed for the quorum of the council. The Arts Council has a membership of 17 and a quorum of five, An Bord Bia has a membership of ten or 12 and a quorum of four, Bord Fáilte has a membership of nine and a quorum of three and Enterprise Ireland has a membership of 12 and a quorum of five, which is one third plus one.
A decision may be made in Cabinet for example, but people differ in Cabinet and not everyone may agree on the decision that is agreed. When a chairman asks "Is that agreed?" it is taken to mean the matter has been agreed by the majority and the decision is a majority decision. The general rule of thumb is that a quorum is one-third or one-third plus one of the membership of a board. That is the way I would like to leave it.
I understand the Minister's point. I proposed a larger quorum to ensure the decisions of the council will be supported. Decisions may be made and later there may be a difference of opinion about them. A meeting might not be well attended because of bad weather or its timing. I would have thought that five would have been a more acceptable number than four and I would prefer a higher figure. We should change the tradition if it is a quorum should be one-third or one-third plus one of the membership of a body.
There is no exact science on the definition of a quorum.
I accept there is not an exact science and I tabled my amendment in an effort to improve the support for the decisions that will be made by the sports council. I will not press my amendment. I tabled it in an effort to ensure the decisions of the sports council would be supported and recognised. A quorum of as few as four weakens a decision, but I accept the Minister's point.
I agree with the Minister on a quorum of four. We accept that the more people who attend the meetings of boards or any organ isation the better, but there will be times when only a limited number of members will be able to attend a meeting. A quorum of four is similar to that which pertains in local authorities and any other body in which I have been involved. We should stick with a quorum of one-third plus one. If we change that, we would move away from what is standard practice in other organisations. As a prominent business man, Senator Quinn will recognise that.
Does the Minister wish to comment?
I appreciate that the Senator is not pressing his amendment. There is no exact science on the definition of a quorum.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 9, subsection (6), lines 11 and 12, after "determined" to insert "by consensus or".
This again refers to corporate governance. This section creates an impression that the normal procedure for decision making by the council should be by votes. That perception should not be created. The aim should be to achieve consensus and votes should only take place when a consensus is not possible. I have always believed that it is very important that boards, councils or committees should work in a spirit of co-operation and avoid votes where possible. Votes are divisive and unnecessary in many cases. The wording used seems to imply that firm decisions should be made based on a vote. I am attempting to send a message that future sports councils are expected to reach a consensus.
Decisions should be taken by vote, otherwise they will be taken with a nod and a wink. Good conclusions can be reached through consensus but when serious decisions are taken by the council, as with any other board, they should be recorded by having a vote.
I agree with Senator Quinn. The legislation should reflect the desired way to go about doing one's business. It is almost more desirable that members should be of one mind rather than being divided. Various subsections deal with majority votes and divisions, and where there are one or more vacancies, a vote will be taken. Consensus is the opposite and involves a different mindset where people get together, tease matters out and reach a consensus on the best way forward.
Dublin City Council decided by acclamation last month to give the freedom of the city to Gay Byrne. Would it not have been terrible if we had done so by majority decision?
A number of decisions are taken by vote.
The freedom of a city can only be given to an individual on a unanimous basis.
Of course, it was given it on a unanimous basis. Acclamation is unanimity. Is that a desirable way to make decisions?
The Senator is right; that is consensus.
It is not, because it is the only way that the freedom of a city can be bestowed on an individual.
We will inform Mr. Byrne about the process when he is given the freedom of the city.
All of us seem to agree that consensus requires a majority. However, my advice is that even at Cabinet consensus is required. Nonetheless, that does not mean that there are no differences of opinion. The proposed amendment would require that every question decided upon by the council would be determined by consensus or a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question. The current provisions in the Bill set out the voting and decision making arrangements for the council. In summary, every member of the council present at a meeting is entitled to a vote and questions are decided upon by a simple majority principle with the chairperson exercising the casting vote in the event of a tied vote. Consensus requires a majority and, thus, the agreement of a majority of members present at a meeting. The Senator's wishes are already catered for in these provisions.
The Minister is twisting this issue.
I am not.
Will he agree to the amendment?
Is there a consensus now?
My aim was to send a message to future councils. I am not pressing the amendment but a way may be found so that councils will understand how they are expected to work. I accept entirely that if opinion is divided, there should be a vote, but my objective is to encourage consensus.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
I am wondering about the use of the word "approval". Section 17 states that "the chief executive officer will be appointed by the council with the Minister's approval". The words "concurrence", "agreement" and "approval" are used in various sections in the Bill. Section 11 states that "The Minister shall in each financial year pay to the council out of monies provided by the Oireachtas such amount or amounts as the Minister may with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance determine. . . "; this is perilous. What do "concurrence", "approval" and "agreement" mean? I am not trying to amend the text but I would prefer if one word were used. Will the Minister explain whether there is a meaningful and worthwhile difference between these words? Different words are used to describe what appears to be the same thing. There has been discussion recently about trying to get rid of archaic language in Bills and English generally. I wish this were simplified so that the parliamentary draftsman would use one word to cover "agreement", "approval" and "concurrence" in future.
I agree that there is little difference in the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of "agreement" and "approval". The parliamentary draftsman's office will take on board the Senator's comments so that there will be consistency in the use of words which basically mean the same thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
I refer again to corporate governance and I am looking at the council as if it were a business. I recall that when I entered the House six years ago we had a major battle to include a time limit for publication in any Bill. Time limits were then included because I tabled an amendment to every Bill passing through the House. Section 26 refers to the publication of the annual report and accounts not later that six months after the end of the year. I am delighted that it has been included and I congratulate the Minister on that. However, I want the six month time limit reduced to three months. Any organisation that is not capable of producing its accounts within three months becomes a part of history. I doubt that the Minister will accept this amendment today but I am putting down a marker.
Future Bills should encourage the early publication of accounts rather than leaving it for six months. It should also be ensured that when councils or State bodies hand over accounts to Departments they are published immediately. In November 1998 I sought the accounts of one State body and was not even able to find the previous year's accounts because they had not been published. The body involved had sent its report to the Mini ster but the Minster had not published it. It was published within a week of my request, but that was 11 months after the end of the year. Shorter time limits should be included. While a six month limit is an improvement, I prefer a three month limit.
A six month time limit is a move in the right direction. There is a great deal of merit in Senator Quinn's contribution on having accounts published sooner. A period of six months is a reasonable amount of time within which a body must have their accounts finalised for the Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope Senator Costello can accede to that provision.
Senators are probably more experienced than I in dealing with these matters. I am sure if it is possible for the sports council to submit their annual report within three months they will agree to do so. The Taoiseach has also expressed concern about the delay in the bringing forward of annual reports. The Government is trying to address that matter. With the level of scrutiny involved these days I wonder if it is possible to bring forward reports on a quarterly basis. I propose to leave the provision as it stands. I appreciate the Senator's acknowledgment of our putting in a six months provision in the first instance.
Businesses in a competitive marketplace whose shareholders are seeking information do not wait six weeks to publish their accounts. They produce them much more quickly than before. I urge that the State adopt the management practices used in business. I am delighted the Minister has decided to include a provision of six months; it is an improvement on what would have been provided for five or six years ago. I urge that we consider publication of such reports much earlier in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for the efficient manner in which he dealt with the amendments. I also thank those who participated in the debate on those amendments.
The setting up of an Irish Sports Council is a tremendous development for sport. I hope it will be operable very soon and will do its job well. It may be worrying for people involved in sport to read articles such as the one about our national stadium, Croke Park. Hill 16, which is renowned worldwide, may have to be developed as a seated arena. I am not aware of any accidents that have taken place in that area. An Bord Pleanála may not have the expertise to make the necessary decision. Such a development will destroy Hill 16 as it has become known in Irish sport. If Croke Park is to become a full seated venue, what then will happen in all our stadia and parks? The Minister might use his good offices to ensure that decision is not pursued.
Guidelines are laid down on safety and the provision of medical facilities. We must ensure that proper medical facilities are available at all sports venues with a capacity to hold more than 1,000 patrons. Facilities at many sporting venues leave a lot to be desired.
I wish the sports council well. I compliment and thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to this House. We look forward to the operation of a very active sporting organisation which will hopefully produce many world champions.
I, too, congratulate the Minister and his officials on their initiative in establishing an Irish Sports Council to promote and develop sport, to regulate it and provide for good conduct and dissemination of information. It is very desirable that it be put on a statutory basis. I am delighted that the Minister has decided to do so now, it is long overdue. We do not wish to have any cloud hanging over Irish sport, be it allegations in relation to amateur sport or professional competitive sport. I am glad the Minister's policy is that all sport is inclusive in terms of the operation of the sports council.
I would like the Minister to have accepted one or two of our amendments, particularly in relation to the distribution of national lottery funding. I am delighted that that can be incorporated in the legislation without further amendment to cover areas such as educational provision and community-based educational facilities in schools and colleges.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Killanin for his contribution to Irish sport at home and abroad and to a wide range of other valuable areas of Irish life. We will be the worst for his passing. He presented an image of Irish sport on the international scene of which we were all proud.
I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for the way in which he dealt with it.
I add my congratulations to the Minister. This is a good Bill. The Minister will look back on the introduction of the Irish Sports Council with a great deal of pride. He has handled this Bill very well in both Houses. He has debated it, allocated time and given attention to it. We had a sense of a listening ear, even if none of our amendments was accepted.
One of the important roads which sport is now taking has not been recognised before. We talked about the importance of education in sport. Because of the need for concentration on literacy and numeracy there is a danger that focus has been removed from health and wellbeing. Education in sport is much more important to young people than we recognised some years ago. The Minister has given us his views on that area. It also raises questions about health, which can benefit from recreational sport. Therefore, the benefits to be gained from the Irish Sports Council will also benefit the community.
On Second Stage we outlined how sport can benefit tourism. Sports can also benefit the Department of Finance because the physical health of the people is reflected in the economic success of this country. The Minister has demonstrated in various ways, not just in this Bill, how our tourism industry benefits from sport.
I am delighted that Senator Norris and other Members referred to Lord Killanin and the Olympics. I had the pleasure of attending the past two Olympics held in Atlanta and Barcelona. I met Lord Killanin at the Barcelona Olympics. He showed great enthusiasm for the games during those years.
I, too, congratulate the Minister for attracting the Special Olympics which Ireland will host in 2003. These games reflect healthy minds and bodies. It also acknowledges Ireland as a country that people can trust to host such an important event. I also congratulate the Minister on the Bill. I wish him and the sports council well in the future.
I am sure my predecessors would agree with me that my Department's Bills are generally of a technical nature. This is the first Bill that I have had the privilege to guide through both Houses of the Oireachtas. It has been an experience to see how the Bill passes through all the tedious processes necessary for it to be enacted. This was not a contentious Bill and I appreciate all the comments made by Senators. Even though I did not accept any amendments I can assure Members that the points they raised are ones that I have already taken on board. I will convey those points to the new sports council when it is established.
I pay tribute to my departmental officials and the parliamentary draftsmen who drafted this Bill. I have said in the past that Ireland has the best civil servants in the world. Such high demands are placed on parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants that they deserve all the credit when a Bill is enacted.
I will take into account the points raised by Senator Moylan at a later stage. Perhaps he can bring them to my attention in private.
National lottery funds have been a bone of contention since its inception. It is easy for Members to say they want to table an amendment that will allow sports councils to disperse lottery funds. However, in the past we have been too willing to hand over the power that we, as elected representatives, have been given by the people. There are few areas in life that do not involve some form of politics.
A select committee has been established and it has received the report of the Sports Council Strategy Group on the disbursement of national lottery funding. That report will also be made available to all the political parties to enable them express their views to the select committee. I wonder how Members will view lottery funding after they read the report. I did not set out to tie the hands of any Government with this Bill but future governments will have to deal with the issue.
I would like to be associated with the remarks about Lord Killanin, a great Irishman. I never met the man in person but I pay tribute to the positive image he gave of Irish people when he was a member of the International Olympic Council. I wrote to his family to express my sympathy on his death and spoke to them at the removal of his remains, at which I had the honour to represent the Government.
I thank Members for their co-operation and I am delighted the Bill has been passed. Sport will benefit from the debates that took place in both Houses.
Question put and agreed to.