Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 2022

Horse Racing in Ireland and the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board's Anti-doping Programme: Discussion

Apologies have been received from Deputy Kehoe. Senator Mullen is substituting for Senator Boyhan. I remind members, witnesses and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile phones.

The purpose of this meeting is to engage on the joint committee's report Horse Racing in Ireland, HRI, and the independent review of the anti-doping programme of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board, IHRB. The committee will hear from representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the IHRB and HRI.

Since 28 February, the legal requirement of mask-wearing in all settings has been removed. However, it is still good practice to continue to use face masks or coverings, particularly in crowded areas. The service encourages all members of the parliamentary community to wear face masks when moving around the campus and in close proximity to others.

Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses to give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting when they participate from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when contributing.

The committee will hear from the following officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Ms Caroline Ball, principal officer; Mr. Michael Sheahan, deputy chief veterinary officer; and Mr. Tim Drea, senior inspector. We are joined by the following representatives from the IHRB: Ms Cliodhna Guy, interim CEO and head of legal affairs, licensing and compliance; Mr. Martin O'Donnell, chairman of the board of directors; Dr. Lynn Hillyer, chief veterinary officer and head of equine anti-doping. From HRI, we will hear from Mr. John Osborne, equine welfare and bloodstock director. I call on the witnesses to make their opening statements, starting with the those from the Department, who are to be followed by those from the IHRB and HRI.

Ms Caroline Ball

I am pleased to attend to provide further information following on from the committee's report Horse Racing in Ireland. I am accompanied by my colleagues Mr. Michael Sheahan and Mr. Tim Drea.

Over the past two years, a number of reports emerged in the media alleging malpractice with regard to integrity issues in Irish horse racing. These reports naturally raised concerns in an industry that is hugely valuable to the rural economy. On foot of these reports, the committee invited officials from this Department and executives from HRI, the IHRB and the Irish Racehorse Trainers Association to a series of meetings in July 2021 to discuss anti-doping processes and systems in horse racing.

Following these meetings, this committee issued a report in November 2021 entitled Horse Racing in Ireland, which included 11 recommendations. The Department welcomes the report, as do HRI and the IHRB. We thank members for the considerable work invested in it and note that the report is broadly positive in content.

Along with the other bodies, the Department was heartened to see the regime of testing and anti-doping measures receive a favourable analysis in the independent review of the IHRB equine anti-doping programme conducted by Dr. Craig Suann. He was broadly satisfied that the IHRB processes "at least match international best practice in most respects" and that the body "has made significant advances in recent years".

The recommendations in the joint committee's report have been carefully considered by the relevant bodies in parallel with those made by Dr. Suann in his report. The Department will continue to work with other relevant stakeholders to ensure the highest standards of integrity and welfare are maintained. The people of Ireland will not support horse racing if it is seen to be tainted with integrity concerns. Efforts to counteract the issue of drug taking in any sport, including horse racing, are part of ongoing integrity development processes.

With regard to the organisation of horse racing, HRI is a commercial State body established under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001. It is responsible for the overall administration, promotion and development of the horse racing industry. It falls under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. As of 1 January 2018, the IHRB has been the statutory regulatory body for all horse racing in Ireland. Its role is provided for in the Horse Racing Ireland Act 2016 and subsequent statutory instruments. However, the body itself remains a private entity. The Horse Racing Ireland Act 2016 provides for a funding mechanism under which the costs of integrity services provided by the IHRB are guaranteed by HRI annually. With regard to Exchequer funding for horse racing, section 12 of the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 provides for Exchequer support to given to the horse and greyhound racing industries through the horse and greyhound racing fund. Some €88 million was allocated to the fund in budget 2022, of which €70.4 million was allocated to HRI.

As to the Department’s role in regulation, the Department is the principal regulator of the agrifood sector while the IHRB regulates horse racing, as I have outlined. There are compliance issues that are of interest to both regulatory bodies. These specifically relate to the use and supply of illegal substances in racing and the inappropriate use and supply of veterinary medicines for use in equines. Animal welfare is another such issue. Certain areas where the Department has regulatory responsibilities may involve prosecution through the courts. In these cases, Department-authorised officers lead or advise on investigations, prepare prosecution files and liaise with the Chief State Solicitor's office or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to see cases through the court system.

In August 2020, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine formally signed a memorandum of understanding between his Department and the IHRB providing for officers of the IHRB to be given powers as authorised officers by the Minister under section 10 of the Animal Remedies Act 1993, as amended, thus enhancing the IHRB’s investigative powers with regard to the use of animal remedies. This memorandum aims to advance the already collaborative working arrangements between the Department and the IHRB to improve the oversight, investigative and enforcement powers of the horse racing industry to support animal welfare and to strengthen domestic and international confidence in its brand. While it extends the powers of the IHRB officers, the memorandum of understanding does not alter the criteria or sanctioning process of the IHRB. Related prosecutions will remain at the discretion of the Department.

On the response to the committee’s report on horse racing, the committee will have received a letter from the Minister earlier this week setting out the observations of the Department, HRI and the IHRB to the recommendations in the committee’s report and providing an update on actions or activities undertaken. I thank members for their attention. My colleagues and I are available to provide any further clarifications and to take any questions.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

On behalf of the IHRB, I thank the Chair and members of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine for their invitation to appear before it. I am the interim chief executive of the IHRB and the head of licensing and legal and compliance. I am joined by my colleague, Dr. Lynn Hillyer, the head of anti-doping and chief veterinary officer for the IHRB, and Mr. Martin O’Donnell, chairman of the IHRB board of directors.

The IHRB was delighted to accept the committee’s invitation to attend today and to take up the opportunity to discuss the committee’s report and highlight the steps we are taking to respond to its recommendations. At the outset, I acknowledge the interest of the members of the committee in the work we do to regulate horse racing in Ireland. I welcome the committee’s willingness to include this issue in its work programme last year and the publication of its comprehensive report last November. Following the publication of the committee’s report, we reviewed the recommendations made by the committee. We continue to endeavour to build these into our actions.

The Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board CLG is a company set up by the Turf Club and Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee to carry out the functions assigned to the racing regulatory body under the Horse Racing Ireland Act 2016. The IHRB is responsible for regulating the integrity of Irish racing including equine doping control. It carries out its functions through a team of highly trained professional racing officials and administrative staff in addition to dedicated and experienced voluntary race day stewards and committee members. The IHRB operates under a service level agreement with Horse Racing Ireland with regard to the provision of integrity services. The Horse Racing Ireland Act 2016 provides that HRI is responsible for guaranteeing funding to the IHRB to carry out its functions through an integrity services budget, which is agreed annually.

The IHRB recently announced the appointment of Darragh O’Loughlin as incoming CEO. His appointment will effect from 29 June next. Mr. O'Loughlin has an exceptional combination of regulatory expertise and long experience in sectoral development and advocacy from his roles as secretary general of the Irish Pharmacy Union and as a member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, the pharmacy regulator. I am sure that members of the committee will have the opportunity to meet with Mr. O'Loughlin following his appointment.

In response to the committee report’s recommendation that an independent review be carried out by an international expert to ensure that Ireland’s procedures match best international practice, in January 2022, the IHRB requested that Dr. Craig Suann undertake a review of the organisation’s equine anti-doping programme. In terms of achieving the necessary level of independence and the appropriate level of expertise and experience, Dr. Suann was, in our opinion, ideal. He is an Australia-based, globally recognised expert. He is the former chief veterinary officer for New South Wales and his collaborative work with the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory has been instrumental in ensuring the first-time detection of several prohibited substances. Dr. Suann undertook a comprehensive and detailed review of the IHRB’s equine anti-doping programme. His report concluded that he was satisfied that it "at least match international best practice in most respects and has made significant advances in recent years." Dr. Suann made a number of recommendations "with the intention of enhancing the robustness of the programme’s processes and outcomes". We refer the members of the committee to Dr. Suann’s report.

The IHRB’s equine anti-doping programme, led by Dr. Hillyer, has developed into a sophisticated and extensive risk-based and intelligence-led strategy in which it is not just the numbers of samples which matter, but from what horse they are taken and where and when they are taken. In recent years, the IHRB has undertaken a range of initiatives designed to make significant progress in modernising our systems. The IHRB has increased testing capabilities and is the first racing authority to routinely take hair samples at race meetings as well as in out-of-competition testing. Similarly, the appointment of IHRB staff as authorised officers has greatly enhanced the investigation capabilities of the organisation. This is considered to be a world-leading and groundbreaking initiative. It effectively means we now have access to any thoroughbred, anywhere, at any time.

Dr. Suann’s report, undertaken as a direct response by the IHRB to the committee’s recommendation, demonstrates that our equine anti-doping programme is fit for purpose and operates to the best international standards. The IHRB is currently reviewing the recommendations made by Dr. Suann to see where our programme can be strengthened.

The installation of CCTV cameras at Irish racecourses is a priority for the IHRB and the prominence of this issue in the report is evidence of its importance to the committee. The IHRB has sought to progress this project to the installation phase as quickly as possible and had hoped to have the installation completed prior to the commencement of the 2022 season. The project has been delayed as a result of the complexity of the procurement process and legal correspondence received in relation to that process which extended the standstill period to 28 January 2022. The extension of the standstill period postponed the conclusion of the procurement phase and, as a result, delayed the commencement of the installation phase. We regret that the original timeline for the project has had to be adjusted but this has been unavoidable under the circumstances. The project is now progressing to the installation phase with the framework agreement signed on 29 March. Site surveys have also been completed by Clardex Systems and a project manager is now in place to conduct the oversight of the project directly. A timeline for the installation work is being agreed with each individual racecourse, taking into consideration the race day schedules that exist. The project is planned to be completed by autumn this year. As the installation phase commences, we will compete the committee updated as to the progress being made.

The IHRB recognises the importance of having a board which reflects the industry and wider Irish society while considering the role of the IHRB as the regulator of the sport. We understand the importance this was given by the committee in its reports and want to assure the committee that we are committed to achieving the objective of 40% gender balance at board level, in line with Government guidelines, and recognise the benefit independent members with relevant skillsets can bring to the organisation. Since the committee’s report, we have been working on the process to allow for the appointment of two independent directors to the board. These positions have now been advertised and the recruitment process is under way.

The IHRB is the regulatory body for all horse racing on the island of Ireland. As an organisation, we are very proud of our historic roots stretching back more than 200 years and of the level of voluntary support we get from people and communities across the island. Historically, the senior stewards and directors of the IHRB are nominated from the cohort of volunteers who dedicate significant time to the sport and have experience as stewards at race day and point-to-points. We want to continue to retain that support at local level and benefit from the vast experience that our volunteers provide but to do this in a way that complies with the highest standards of governance underpinned by legislation.

The Horse Racing Ireland Act 2016 sets out the IHRB’s functions, provides for the funding mechanism under which the costs of integrity services are guaranteed by HRI and requires that the annual financial statements of the IHRB be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, submitted to the Minister and laid before the Oireachtas. The IHRB also complies with the code of practice for governance of State bodies.

Following a process of public procurement in 2018, LGC Laboratories was selected to provide laboratory services and sample analysis for the IHRB. Working with LGC, the organisation has been able to reduce the cost per unit of samples and increase the number of samples that can be taken. From 1 January 2022 to the end of April 2022, a total of 2,009 samples have been taken, of which 66% were taken on the racecourse and at point-to-points and 34% were taken as part of the out-of-competition programme. In the same period in 2021, 968 samples were taken, of which 930 were taken on the racecourse and 38 were out-of-competition testing. Of the 2,009 samples taken so far in 2022, four have returned an adverse analytical finding, which is 0.2%. There have been 40 disciplinary hearings held by the IHRB so far this year, nine of which related to adverse analytical findings.

In carrying out its anti-doping testing programme, the IHRB applies a risk analysis and intelligence-based strategy to its selection of premises and horses for testing. The focus is to obtain the right sample from the right horse at the right time. The appointment of IHRB officials as authorised officers under the Animal Remedies Act enables the IHRB to access thoroughbreds at any time at any venue, even when they are not on licensed premises. Between January and June 2021, 18 premises were inspected by the IHRB’s authorised officers. This number rose to 141 by the end of the year, after the organisation was able to reactivate inspections following Covid-19 restrictions. The IHRB has had a much stronger start to 2022, with 87 premises already inspected so far this year, seven of which were unlicensed.

The IHRB understands the need for confidentiality in such cases to guarantee success. The inspections are unannounced, with a specific process in operation to ensure that only those who need to know where the team is going know. This is restricted to the head of anti-doping in the first instance, with the lead investigating officer being informed the evening before and the rest of the team informed only at rendezvous on the morning of the inspection.

The IHRB has a top-class equine anti-doping team, headed up by Dr. Hillyer, which meets international best practice, having made significant advances in recent years, as highlighted by Dr. Suann’s report. This team works alongside and is supported by colleagues who are highly skilled and experienced in their field, and passionate about their roles in horse racing. The organisation will continue to work to implement the recommendations of Dr. Suann’s review of the equine anti-doping programme and this committee’s report on horse racing in Ireland.

I again thank the Chair and members of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine for giving us the opportunity to address them regarding the progress we have made in implementing the recommendations made by this committee. The IHRB looks forward to working with this committee in the future and will endeavour to keep the committee and its members updated of the progress we make as we continue to strengthen our anti-doping programme. We would be pleased to engage with any questions or issues that members may have.

Mr. John Osborne

I am representing Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, and Suzanne Eade, who, as members know, appears before this committee in a few weeks' time. I thank the committee for this opportunity to update it on the progress we have made since we met last July.

HRI is a commercial State body under the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Our mission is to administer, promote and develop horse racing and breeding on the island of Ireland. HRI manages many elements of horse racing day-to-day, such as registration of horses, race planning and programming, entries and declarations, prize money and owner accounts. We assist in the provision of certain specialist services to racing, for example, the modernisation of starting stalls procedures and world-leading photo-finish equipment and personnel are niche areas of excellence in what we do. We have also set about improving the racing infrastructure through a capital investment programme which has seen great improvements in racecourse facilities for spectators, workers and horses.

At our foundation in 2001, the role of an independent regulator was specifically called out and the IHRB fulfils that role. We have a good working relationship with the IHRB and its officers, who set and enforce the rules of racing. Both HRI and IHRB work to an annual budget determined, as with all budgetary matters, through an annual allocation from which all our responsibilities are accounted for.

We are here today principally to focus on the findings of this committee from its deliberations last year and to report to it on our progress with implementation of those recommendations. We are satisfied that progress has been made on all fronts. The recently published Suann report on anti-doping was reassuring, stating how our standards match or surpass the best practices worldwide, and we are always seeking to improve upon that strong position. This conclusion broadly matched the positive endorsement that this committee’s report conveyed in November 2021.

In regard to the specific findings of the committee, much of it will be covered by my colleagues in the IHRB. One area which attracted much comment last year was the provision of CCTV cameras in stable yards and the committee’s recommendation that it be expedited. If I may focus on this for a moment, it is fair to point out that this objective will be delivered on as soon as is possible. The delivery has been slower than originally anticipated. We have control systems on all our expenditure. The complexity of the specification was partly due to each stable yard across 25 different racecourses being very different. The procurement process was competitive and robust. These controls are important. We have a contractor in place, work has commenced and it will be completed by the end of the year. This project demonstrates how we work collaboratively with racecourses and the regulator to achieve our mutual objective of world-leading horse racing with the highest standards of integrity.

We do not stand still, particularly in the context of the high reputation our racing enjoys. The integrity of the racing results, which impacts directly on the value of our racehorses, their care and well-being, and also the value of our betting product, is reliant on trust.

At the beginning, I said that Senator Mullen was substituting for Senator Boyhan. That is not the case and Senator Boyhan is attending as a full member of the committee. I want to clarify that for the record.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. This is a hugely important industry for our country and its integrity is paramount. As a committee, we felt last year it was important, due to comments that were being made in the media, that we would devote time to it and, as was said, we issued a comprehensive report on the industry. To respond to one of the points made today, I am disappointed that the CCTV footage has not progressed faster because I believe it is very important.

Ms Guy’s statement noted that the IHRB inspected a number of premises and that some were unlicensed. She might clarify how unlicensed premises exist and why these premises are unlicensed when there are thoroughbred horses on the premises.

Does the IHRB distinguish between going to a licensed premises as against an unlicensed premises?

Another bugbear of mine is the registration of thoroughbreds and horses. When the IHRB goes to a premises to do testing, unless there is an accurate live register of the animals there how can it be sure its testing is comprehensive of all the thoroughbreds in that ownership? An inspector comes to the farm in the case of bovine tests. Whether it is ten, 50 or 100 animals, they all have to be there and accounted for on the day. Where stands the thoroughbred industry and horse racing in general, not just thoroughbreds? I have a bee in my bonnet about the number of horses that are not microchipped, although most of them are not thoroughbreds. It is a discussion we have had with the Department in other forums and it comes up a lot when we talk about welfare of horses. In many cases, when there are welfare issues, the horses are not microchipped. They are not thoroughbreds, however, and I accept fully that the microchipping of thoroughbreds is 100% comprehensive.

I know other members want to come in. I ask the witnesses to address those few matters. I will then go to members of the committee.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

To clarify regarding licensed and unlicensed premises, when we refer to licensed premises we are talking about premises that have been authorised under a trainer's licence, which is issued by us. Unlicensed premises do not hold a licence under the rules of racing. I will pass over to my colleague, Dr. Hillyer, who will deal with the Chairman's questions comprehensively.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

On how matters differ when we enter a licensed or an unlicensed premises, we took a decision last year that we would enter all premises, whether licensed or unlicensed, under our authorised officer warrant card. Otherwise, we would have been in the position where, for example, if there had been an issue, and we had gone in under the rules of racing, we would have had to walk out of the premises and go back in again, if we had wanted to take action as authorised officers. It was a default to enter as authorised officers.

On the point about how we can ensure we adequately test or examine all the animals on the premises, the Chairman is right that without a full traceability database that is challenging. What we do to mitigate the risks in the spheres of anti-doping and welfare is examine and inspect every animal we can on the premises. If we expect there to be a horse that is not present, we go and find that animal, as far as we possibly can. We know what to expect in respect of horses returned in training. If an animal is not there that should be, we do everything we can to try to trace it.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their submissions. The common theme in all three submissions was the welcoming and the complimenting of the independent review by Dr. Suann.

I have a couple of quickfire questions to get some background clarification. I will delve into the review a little more. What process or procedure did IHRB follow in coming up with the author, Dr. Suann? Was there any advertising of expressions of interest? Who picked him?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

In terms of the expertise required, there are quite few individuals in the world who would have that level of expertise in, or knowledge of, equine anti-doping and a complementary knowledge of horse racing. That shortlist was compiled and reviewed. Dr. Suann was proposed as the person to complete the report and that was approved by the board.

A very quick Google search on Dr. Suann, without going too deep below the surface, indicates a lot of correlation between him and Dr. Hillyer, when they served on the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities. They are co-signatories to many different reports of that body. Did the fact there was a previous working relationship between our head of anti-doping and Dr. Suann somewhat hinder the independence of the review?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Horse racing is a large industry but quite a small number of people are involved in it, especially in its veterinary and regulatory aspects. Dr. Suann and the other individuals who were considered also have featured on many committees, as well as Dr. Hillyer, who is involved with the International Conference of Racing Analysts and Veterinarians, ICRAV, and a number of the international committees. That level of expertise is necessary to review our programme in order to be able to compare it to international best practice.

Did Dr. Suann visit Ireland during the compilation of his review?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

No. Covid restrictions prevented Dr. Suann from visiting Ireland but we used technical measures to give him full and comprehensive access to all our systems, all staff and anything he required.

It was basically a desktop review, as we call it. I know there was Covid, which may be a reason for somebody not to go to the southern hemisphere, but we can discuss that later. When Dr. Suann required information, it was the IHRB that gave him the information he required for his desktop review. Who was the point of contact? When he had a query or when he wanted access to historical figures, numbers of tests, the process of testing, etc., and all the things he reviewed, who was his point of contact? Who provided him with that information?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

The accessing of information went through Dr. Hillyer and her staff. Clearly, the information is available across the organisation but we funnelled it through and anything Dr. Suann requested went to him.

He was reviewing the IHRB but it was giving him the information to do that. He did not have access. As I said, he never had the opportunity to visit a racecourse or a point to point to see the IHRB testing, to go out on a day with its authorised officers or even to review its historical data, unless it was the historical data it sent to him. How did the IHRB know Dr. Suann was getting everything?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I am happy to speak to this. Ideally, we would have loved to have had Dr. Suann over here. That option remains open in the future should there be a need or the direction to do so. What we did was open the doors to him. We opened access to all of our systems and databases, and all of our staff. He had open access to everything he wanted. It was not so much us giving him the information we felt he wanted. He came with long lists of what he needed and he had everything that we could give. That included interviews with staff, for which I was not present or involved in, and access to our databases and all our records because that was very important for us. There were no "no access" areas - that is bad English. All areas were open to him.

Can the representatives appreciate how I and others might be sceptical of the fact that because of the IHRB's previous history with Dr. Suann - namely, the independence or lack of same, - he could do this comprehensive review, which has been welcomed by all three parties this evening, from a different hemisphere without actually setting foot on the island? I would like our other witnesses to comment on that too because they are all party to this. I am not knocking the report. I am not commenting on its content. I am asking if the witnesses can see how the people we are trying to convince we are squeaky clean and doing everything right could be very sceptical based on what I have stated.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I will make one point on Dr. Suann's expertise, which my colleague has alluded to. I can count on one hand the number of people who have the necessary expertise and experience to carry out this review. The Senator is right in that Dr. Suann's skills and qualifications are in the same direction as mine, although he has been around a lot longer than I have and has worked a lot longer in this sphere. There are two people in the United States, one person in Hong Kong, Dr. Suann and possibly me who are working in this area. It was very important for us that we went outside Europe and our direct zone to somebody who could critically review us as far as possible.

That is not the direction I am going in. I beg to differ on what Dr. Hillyer said because I was involved in a company years ago when we were convinced to put in an application for International Organization for Standardization certification. The way it was explained to me was if these systems were put in, and everybody worked to the system, the man from the moon could come down to see if it was working or not. While some veterinary background may be needed, it was really the IHRB's systems and processes that were being examined. If they are written, anybody can tell whether they have been followed or not. We will not split hairs on Dr. Suann's expertise or professionalism. Can Dr. Hillyer and our other guests see why people would be sceptical of this report, based on the reasons I have outlined?

Mr. John Osborne

On the Senator's last point, in essence, the report gives a ringing endorsement of the processes and procedures that are followed.

That is more important than anything in all this.

Dr. Suann never visited a race meeting or a point-to-point meeting, though. He never accompanied the authorised officers on a visit to a licensed or an unlicensed premises. He was very happy with what he saw from the information he was given.

Mr. John Osborne

He had access to all information he felt was relevant, though, and there was a comprehensive review of all procedures. I believe he got some footage of how certain processes were done by video link, which was as good as one could get-----

Who made that video?

Mr. John Osborne

It was a video of the process as it played out.

Somebody from the IHRB, which was being reviewed. Does Mr. Osborne see the point I am making?

Mr. John Osborne

I see the Senator's point but the more substantive issue is that the processes Dr. Suann reviewed were extremely strong, which is the most reassuring part of this. This can be done again. In the world we were in in 2021, it was not the perfect solution but it was a very robust one in the circumstances.

That is why I asked at the start why Dr. Suann was picked. Somebody off-island could have been picked and could have been given IHRB access-all-area passes because there were races at the time. I would have thought that that would have been taken into consideration. Dr. Suann knew about Covid when the decision was being made. Did that not influence the decision as to who to pick?

Mr. John Osborne

There was the balance between seniority, independence and Dr. Suann's scientific qualifications. We went to the top of the list for this person. We also went to a territory which would be widely accepted to be among the most sophisticated in respect of this field, namely, Australia. There were far more pluses than question marks in the choice. Again, the ultimate report was comprehensive. It went through in fine detail all the processes and came with a very strong endorsement that what was being done was equal to or better than anything Dr. Suann had seen worldwide. There are not many people with the breadth of perspective on such a specialist area that Dr. Suann has. That counterbalances the shadow the Senator might feel is over this. The Senator asks whether, if somebody else was found to do this at some future date, he or she would come to the same conclusion. I am very confident they would.

Mr. Michael Sheahan

I do not have very much to add. In my experience, no matter who is picked to do a report, there is never a perfect candidate and there is always a balance between their expertise, where they are located and so on. It is correct, and I think it is acknowledged in the report, that in ideal circumstances it would have been better if Dr. Suann was able to visit, but for Covid reasons he was not. If somebody had been picked from the UK, that could have been open to criticism that the person was too close and people would ask why we did not pick somebody from Australia. There is never a perfect candidate, but the Senator's point is a reasonable one to make. It certainly would have been better if Dr. Suann was able to put his hand on the wound and visit. This area is constantly evolving, so at some stage there will probably be a need for a further review in order that people do not rest on their laurels. The next time around, it is to be hoped, we will not be in the middle of a pandemic and that point can be addressed.

I have just a couple more brief questions. They will not be as long-winded. We discussed the authorised officers a lot the last time the witnesses were before us. We also discussed training of the authorised officers and a training manual. I think the Department was to give training. The witnesses can correct me if I am wrong about the following. Was there an incident recently in which authorised officers entered private property in Northern Ireland, outside the jurisdiction of the Twenty-six Counties? While HRI and the IHRB have racing jurisdiction and racing authority there, they were actually breaking the law in that jurisdiction by entering the premises.

The witnesses do not have to answer that question. They are not responsible for something in Northern Ireland.

It was their people, though. I am asking if they entered the premises. This is not about Northern Ireland but about authorised officers from the IHRB. I am led to believe they entered a premises. Irrespective of the fact that they had been trained by the Department and one of the submissions refers to the legal aspect of the authorised officer, still I am led to believe, and I am just looking for confirmation, that that happened. The authorised officers do not have the authority to enter private properties, licensed or unlicensed, yet they did so. Is that correct or incorrect?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I think the Senator is referring to one of the visits in Northern Ireland, when a team was out visiting a licensed premises and one of the team was concerned that they were not gaining access to the property quickly enough. There was an entry but the licensee was quickly found and the presence on the premises was quickly explained and inspection carried on, as it should have done.

Can the Department confirm whether authorised officers from our Government, the Department or the IHRB have authority to enter private property, be it licensed or unlicensed, outside this jurisdiction?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

To clarify, they entered on the basis of the rules of racing. It was a licensed premises. In Northern Ireland we do not have authorised officer-----

Therefore, if it is unlicensed, the IHRB does not have authority.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Authorised officer status does not pertain to Northern Ireland premises, but we enter unlicensed premises on the basis of the rules of racing and the licence held.

Therefore, in that jurisdiction the IHRB does not have authority to enter unlicensed premises.

Is there a training manual? There was a lot of discussion here before about a training manual, who was trained, what training was done and whether there is a manual.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We have a training manual. It was written from scratch last year. I will not go into the detail. I have gone through this already. It was a working document. We are now reviewing the memorandum of understanding, MOU, again with the Department. We have a meeting on 13 June at which that manual will be refined. I think I made this point the last time but I probably need to make it again. The manual was an internal training document. It has material, including regulatory information, in it which is sensitive and which we have been given by officers and colleagues in the Department as to how to carry out investigations, take statements and so on. I think where we got to last time was that we were very happy to share the manual in principle, but there are sections of it which it would not be appropriate to share.

I appreciate that.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I might defer to colleagues in the Department on this.

Mr. Tim Drea

I represent the investigations division in the Department. We have a lot of engagement with the IHRB, particularly on procedures and practices and working out ways of working together. My division is subject to the same kind of requirement to justify and to explain what we do without putting information out in the public domain that makes it too clear what we can and cannot do and makes it easier for people to circumvent some of our enforcement actions. We are both obliged to comply with the law and then whatever kinds of codes of practice or procedures we operate internally. I am not very familiar with IHRB's, but in the Department there are complaints procedures that allow people to express concerns about anything we might do.

But the Department did have a role in training the IHRB authorised officers.

Mr. Tim Drea

We work with them all the time, yes.

Since our inquiries started, how often has the IHRB met with the trainers or the trainer representative bodies to discuss everything that has been ongoing? When was the last time the IHRB met them and when might it propose to meet them again? I am led to believe that such meetings do not happen with great frequency.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

We had a formal meeting late last year with representatives from the Irish Racehorse Trainers Association. We have ongoing - weekly, sometimes daily - calls with both the CEO and the president of the Irish Racehorse Trainers Association. We have a request in for a meeting and we are waiting for dates from both the Irish Racehorse Trainers Association and the Restricted Trainers Association.

You have a request in with them.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

They have requested a meeting; I have requested dates from them in order to get that meeting scheduled. We are more than happy to meet them. We and our officials meet regularly at the racecourse and there are those general discussions or phone calls regularly.

Chair, if this is not an appropriate question, please tell me. Are there currently any proven positive cases pending within Ms Guy's organisation that have not yet come into the public domain? If not, why are they not in the public domain?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

In terms of our cases and the investigations, once the referrals committee matter has concluded the press release on decision is published. We do not publish until the matter has been determined by our referrals committee.

In that case, there could be some investigations that have not yet come to the referrals committee and are not, therefore, in the public domain.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Exactly.

I thank our guests for attending. Is there any particular reason the CEO of the HRI is not here?

Mr. John Osborne

The CEO will be here in two weeks' time.

I am aware of that. However, is there any particular reason she is not attending this meeting?

Mr. John Osborne

No. We felt that today's meeting has a narrow focus. In two weeks' time, the CEO can speak to strategic matters.

The CEO contacted me and stated she felt that given his expertise on the subject, Mr. Obsorne would be better placed to attend today's meeting. She indicated she will appear before the committee to discuss where she sees the industry going. We concluded that it was better to do that.

I take it the HRI's opening statement has been cleared with the CEO?

Mr. John Osborne

Yes.

In what is, I must say, a very short opening statement, the HRI states that its representatives "are here today principally to focus on the findings of this committee from its deliberations last year and to report to it on our progress with implementation of those recommendations." It further states: "We are satisfied that progress has been made on all fronts." Does Mr. Osborne stand over that statement? There are 11 recommendations, observations and conclusions. I ask Mr. Osborne to point to which of those 11 he considers significant progress has been made on in its implementation.

Mr. John Osborne

There are 11 or 12 areas-----

I have a few questions for the representatives of the Department and the IHRB. I can come back to Mr. Osborne, if he wants to go through the recommendations. To be helpful, I might reference some of the recommendations that I am talking about. Recommendation No. 4 states that the committee believes an independent review of the horse racing industry by an outside body is needed to ensure that Ireland’s procedures match international best practices. This review by the independent body should, it continues, include a full audit of all tests previously carried out, with particular reference to five particular points, which are then set out. Does the Department intend to establish that review?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

For clarity, we sent in a submission which went through all of the recommendations. Do the committee members have that document?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

Okay, sorry.

I believe we received it yesterday.

It is contained in appendix 1.

Mr. Michael Sheahan

The committee members have that then.

Recommendation No. 4 is an important one. I will not go through all of the recommendations made by the committee individually, just those that I consider to be the important ones. I am interested in hearing whether the Department plans to implement that recommendation.

Mr. Michael Sheahan

My understanding was that Dr. Suann's report implemented that recommendation. That was my understanding.

Mr. Sheahan believes recommendation No. 4 was implemented through the appointment by the board of the IHRB of an esteemed individual - there is no question of that - to conduct an assessment without ever setting foot in Ireland.

Mr. Michael Sheahan

That was my understanding, yes.

Okay. That is interesting.

Mr. Michael Sheahan

We have talked about the reasons the expert was not able to come to Ireland. That aside, it was my understanding that the recommendation had been implemented.

Okay. I must say, as one of the many members who compiled the report, that it is not what we envisaged when we stated that "an independent review of the horse racing industry by an outside body is needed to ensure that Ireland’s procedures match international best practices."

On the first few recommendations of the report, there was a lot of discussion of the make-up of the IHRB, as the witnesses may be aware. When is the new CEO, Mr. O'Loughlin, taking up post?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

On 29 June.

Has his remuneration been agreed yet?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I might refer to Mr. O'Donnell, who can respond.

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

It has indeed been agreed.

Will the details of it be published?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

They will.

If Mr. O'Donnell does not mind me asking, what is the remuneration?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

It is €180,000 per annum.

Is that fairly similar to the salary of the CEO of the HRI?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

I am not aware of the salary of the CEO of the HRI. The figure was agreed with the HRI. However, I believe there was a requirement that it would be in line with the salary of the CEO of the HRI.

How many members are on the board of the IHRB?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

There are six members.

In her opening statement, Ms Guy said that two independent members will be appointed to the board. Which two current board members are going to be kicked off to make space for the new members?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

Two additional members are going to be appointed.

It will be two additional members.

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

Yes.

Who will appoint those independent members?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

The process is that Boardmatch Ireland is being used to identify them. A nominations committee has been appointed by the board to appoint the two members.

The nominations committee is a sub-committee of the board.

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

Yes.

Do some of the six current members of the board sit on the sub-committee?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

Not quite.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

The nominations committee will consist of the chair of the board, the independent chairman of our audit and risk committee and an external individual.

Who will that be?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

We are finalising that at the moment, so I cannot confirm who it will be.

Who is going to appoint the external member of the nominations committee to appoint the independent members?

Mr. Martin O'Donnell

We have deliberated on that too.

How will the IHRB identify the external member of the nominations committee?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

We will use somebody who has experience in recruitment, governance and organisational structure.

I do not mean to come across as facetious, but I am more concerned about the independent members of the board. What criteria are being put in place?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

A gap analysis on governance and the skill sets that are currently represented on the board was completed by an external agent. We have identified a gap in finance and governance. Two job descriptions have been drafted with the assistance of Boardmatch Ireland and published, one for someone with expertise in finance and one seeking expertise in governance.

Is there a requirement that applicants must have no relationship whatsoever with the horseracing industry?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

It has been set out that the applicants must be independent. That is included in the job descriptions.

I take it the Department considers that that process amounts to the implementation of recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 of our report, as such.

Ms Caroline Ball

Yes, I think so. We have been liaising with the HRI and the IHRB on this matter. We note the IHRB is attempting to expand the board to include the independent members. It has also given a commitment to improve female representation on the board to bring it in line with the Government guidelines on gender balance and representation on State boards. We are continuing to work with both organisations on that.

I will read an extract from recommendation No. 1. It states:

The Committee suggests that the board structure of the new governance regulatory body in the United States could be used as an example in this regard. With regards to the composition of the board, the Committee recommends that a majority of independent members be appointed to the board by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Does that bear any relationship to what we have just heard from the representatives of the IHRB?

Ms Caroline Ball

I suppose it is not exactly the same. However, we did liaise with the American Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, HISA. It drafts and enforces safety and integrity rules in thoroughbred racing in the USA. The HISA was created to implement, for the first time, a national uniform set of rules applicable to every thoroughbred racing participant. Recently, I took part in a virtual meeting with two executives involved in the racing industry in the USA and the Department's agricultural attaché in Washington. The engagement was very useful. However, the HISA is quite a new organisation, so we have undertaken to continue to maintain a watching brief as to how the systems and structures develop.

In the response that was referenced earlier, mention is made of research undertaken. The British Horseracing Authority, France Galop and the Japan Racing Association were referenced. No verdict was passed on the US body. In fairness, the committee suggested that the board structure of the US body be taken as an example. Specifically, the committee recommended that a majority of independent members be appointed to the board by the Minister. That is not happening.

Ms Caroline Ball

I believe the Minister-----

I am asking for a "Yes" or "No" answer. It is not happening. It is fair to say that.

Under recommendation 2, the committee asked for consideration to be given to the question of whether legislation should be altered to reclassify the IHRB as a semi-State body under the aegis of the Department to ensure complete transparency in its governance. Is that going to happen?

Ms Caroline Ball

We took the committee's recommendation into account and gathered information relating to the governance structures of horse racing organisations in other jurisdictions. We have given the examples of what happens in Britain, France and Japan. We also liaised with individuals in the US. We found that other major horse racing jurisdictions had a variety of approaches, with each approach appropriate to the jurisdiction in question. The Department arrived at the belief that the existing model in Ireland, underpinned by Irish legislation, is the best fit for this country. There is existing legislation and a service level agreement between the IHRB and HRI, which is the State body with responsibility for thoroughbred horse racing. We believe that provides a sound framework on which to base the regulation of the industry. However, it is acknowledged that governance practices in all organisations should be reviewed and developed. To that end, the IHRB has committed to complying with the stringent requirements of the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. Having considered all of that, the Department's conclusion was that the existing model, underpinned by Irish legislation, is the best fit for this country.

That response is another way of saying the recommendation is not being implemented. I do not expect Ms Ball to elaborate any further.

Recommendation 5 states that the Department needs to employ veterinarians and technicians to manage and oversee the sampling of racehorses for testing and doping, and ensure the most modern and comprehensive testing regime is in place. Is that recommendation going to be implemented?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

In this case, I agree with the Deputy. This is one recommendation we considered carefully, but we did not see any merit in the suggestion. We do not intend to employ Department veterinarians to do the sampling at racecourses. We considered the recommendation but could not see any particular logic to it. Dr. Suann's report also concluded that the sampling process is done by two assistants and a full-time veterinarian. From reading back through the transcripts of debates, I am not sure from where the recommendation emerged. We could not see any particular logic to it. The process seems to work very well.

That is fair enough and I appreciate the straight answer. Recommendation 11 covers an issue that come up often at the committee. It stated that full traceability of horses via an electronic system, like the AIM system for cattle, of which this committee is well aware, needs to be introduced by the Department immediately. Is that going to happen immediately?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

It is not going to happen immediately, but it would be fair to say that a lot of progress has been made in respect of traceability in horses albeit there is still a long way to go. As we discussed at our most recent visit to the committee, we always talk about how good our cattle traceability system is and to a lesser extent, how good our sheep and pig systems are. The horse system, while it has come a long way, is not at the same stage as the AIM system for cattle. Having said that, we should acknowledge that we have come a long way from where we started our journey to trace horses. The Department became involved in horse traceability in 2012. In that year, we introduced a central database for the first time. In 2013 or 2014, the change of ownership legislation was introduced. In 2014, EU legislation, and Irish legislation thereafter, considerably strengthened the identification of horses because it included the need for them to be microchipped and so on.

We mentioned at the most recent meeting we had with the committee that we were planning an equine census. That census happened in November 2021. There will be a further equine census in November 2022 because there were some issues with the technology and so on in last year's census. We are moving towards more real-time information about where horses are at any time. There are particular difficulties with tracking horses compared to cattle because as part of the training and breeding processes, horses move considerably more often. We are moving in that direction but it is unrealistic to say we could introduce that recommendation immediately. The census was an important step on that journey and there will be a follow-on census in November this year which we hope will build on that progress. There are plans to give people access to the equivalent on an AIM database that will allow horse owners to update their profile in real time, similar to the process in respect of cattle. It will take a bit of time but significant progress is being made.

I thank Mr. Sheahan. I will not go into the other recommendations. This is the committee at which our guests will get the best hearing in respect of horse racing. Uniquely and unanimously, the members of this committee have a keen interest in seeing horse racing in Ireland succeed. Our starting point for all of these interactions is to consider what is in the best interests of Irish horse racing. The committee has made a number of recommendations and observations, and arrived at conclusions, following consultation with all the players in the sector and the general public. The reason we did so - and took so much time in doing so - is because there is a lot of public unease and distrust relating to whether the systems in place are robust, fair and, above all, independent. The responses the committee has got back are not up to the standard required in order for us to say in confidence that the sector is above reproach.

Having gone through the recommendations and heard the responses we have received, I must ask Mr. Osborne if he still stands over his statement that in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of this committee, he is satisfied that progress has been made on all fronts?

Mr. John Osborne

I see progress. I am not saying we have completed the process but we are making progress.

I have gone through the recommendations. I acknowledge that in line with recommendation 3, the IHRB has improved its system in respect of the transparency around pay scales. Other than that, none of the recommendations have been implemented in any meaningful way whatsoever.

Mr. John Osborne

We are making progress.

I welcome our guests. They are guests of ours and I think that is an important point to make. I thank them for coming to the meeting.

I have a number of questions that will come in a slightly disjointed way. I do not mean for them to be disjointed but they are observations I have noted. I found the IHRB's Integrity Racing Statistics 2019 an interesting document. Does such a document exist for 2020 and 2021 and if so, may we have a copy of them? They are IHRB documents.

The Equine Anti-Doping Report is a new departure for the IHRB. I think I read somewhere the intention is that those reports will be published quarterly. Would our guests like to comment on anything in that anti-doping report? Were there any statistics or concerns in that report that jumped off the page? I have read the document but I want to ask our guests if there is anything they would like to bring to the attention of the committee in that regard?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I will take the first question and will pass to Dr. Hillyer on the second question. The integrity statistics are published annually and are available on our website. The 2022 statistics will be published shortly. The 2021 statistics are on the website. We can arrange to send them to the committee.

That would be welcome. I could not find those 2021 statistics but that may have been my fault. As our guests know, the committee made certain substantial recommendations. I am concerned at the slow progress. I will leave it at that.

We are here because we believe in the industry and are supportive of it. I can declare that I have a reasonably keen interest in horse racing. I attend races at Leopardstown, the Curragh, Punchestown and a number of other places. I have an interest in the industry, as do most others on the committee. It is an important industry and, as Deputy Carthy said, everyone wants to see it succeed.

We are not here to point the finger at anyone but it would be remiss of us if we did not raise the concerns that we received from the public and the bigger industry in regard to it. That is an important point to make.

In our recommendation No. 8, we state that as Ireland has a large horse racing industry, the committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine considers developing laboratory capacity in Ireland to build a national expertise in testing as well as employment opportunities in this field. That was a recurring theme. We see that the work of the IHRB was contracted out to an independent laboratory, LGC. I understand from the report that it was not audited by Dr. Suann. He did not audit the work of the IHRB's contracted independent laboratory, LGC. Is that correct? If so, why?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

The scope of Dr. Suann's report did not include auditing LGC because LGC itself is subject to continual audit on several levels. The first is a basic accreditation under ISO 17025 under UKAS, so there is a statutory requirement for it to be audited. It then has to jump through a few more hoops in terms of its extra qualifications or standing in relation to horse racing testing. In particular, it must pass continual testing by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities. A group there assesses its competence to allow it to maintain its certified laboratory status. The laboratory was not reaudited because Dr. Suann was able to rely on those very formal audit processes that were already in place.

Is that going to be the ongoing arrangement? I would be somewhat concerned about that. He was commissioned to do a report and it was surprising that he had not audited its work.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

The information is already existing in the audits that already take place. I refer to those two particular areas so the UKAS accreditation and also the IFHA accreditation or certification.

Okay.

It is stated that a full public procurement process for the provision of our laboratory services will start in 2020 and we look forward to receiving Dr. Suann's report and acting on any recommendations when they are available. What is the current status of that procurement process?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

The laboratory contract is due up at the end of this year. In terms of procurement, the framework agreement is up this year and the procurement process will start in due course for that. We had a full procurement process in 2018 which resulted in the initial appointment of LGC.

This was in the IRHB's equine anti-doping report of January 2022. Ms Guy stated it will commence in 2022.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Yes, sorry. Earlier Senator Boyhan said 2021, so I was not sure. Yes, the procurement process will commence in 2022.

Is it under way?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

It will be, shortly.

In regard to the authorised officers and the warrant card, I understand this enhances the powers of the IHRB and strengthens its processes. I have received complaints about it. Personally, I would not necessarily share those views. I think the authorised officer is a process. What difficulties have been encountered in terms of gaining access to premises using the authorised officer warrant card and the powers that come with it? Are there difficult scenes? Is there any resistance?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We have tried to wear what is quite a responsibility as lightly as we possibly can while still maintaining our effectiveness. To take a broad brush, we have only been in operation about a year. The warrant cards were issued on 21 May 2021. We are careful to behave respectfully and carefully at all times. Some visits warrant a different approach but it depends on the inspection. To put numbers on it, I would say 95% of the time we would enter very similarly as we would on a normal licensed premises. In other words, going to a gate, ringing the doorbell or the gatebell, and proceeding. Sometimes, and only specifically in relation to intelligence, information or a risk basis, we have to behave differently. By definition usually if that is the case we will actually be with our colleagues from the investigations division.

I will focus now on the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. There is a memorandum of understanding between the Department and the IHRB. How is that going? When is it going to be reviewed? Will the witnesses elaborate on that memorandum?

Mr. Tim Drea

Effectively, we have of legislation and the Minister authorises the officers of the IHRB which gives them the powers in the legislation. Then we have the memorandum of understanding which is an agreement between the two parties around how the IHRB will exercise those powers. An authorised officer under the 1993 veterinary medicines legislation can deal with cattle and farmers, and has the powers to do all that. The memorandum of understanding sets out how IHRB officers will work, given their role and where they will operate. They are focused on thoroughbred horses, people associated with them and places where they might be. It gives them more scope in that sense and the powers set out in legislation to search, seize and sample. It basically gives them the powers that the Department has.

Would Mr. Drea agree it is working well?

Mr. Tim Drea

I would.

That is perfect.

I will go back to the IHRB. In one of the recommendations there was a report that suggested that the IHRB should consider executing a memorandum of understanding with the Veterinary Council of Ireland to ensure the prompt referral of hearings and matters relating to poor professional performance or professional misconduct on the part of veterinarians treating racehorses. Have the witnesses any comment on that?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We have a strong relationship with the Veterinary Council of Ireland so perhaps we will answer that on two levels-----

A memorandum of understanding is what was suggested.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

In terms of the relationship with the Veterinary Council of Ireland, the relationship is strong and we refer matters on. We will explore the possibility or the need for a memorandum of understanding. However it has certain powers in its role and we refer matters on as required to allow it to deal with those.

If criminal proceedings take place against either a jockey or a trainer, the IHRB should be required to conduct its own separate investigation following a conviction. What is the view of the witnesses on that?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

It would depend on the nature of the criminal proceedings. If we are talking about a matter that relates to them in their operation as a jockey or a trainer, if a conviction is found, is it appropriate for us to go behind a conviction if it is found by a court of the land?

To conduct a separate investigation.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

We can conduct a separate investigation but if someone has been convicted of an offence we cannot then find them not to be in breach of whatever the criminal legislation is, but we can deal with it in terms of our rules of racing.

Does the IHRB do that?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

We do, yes.

What is the benefit of that? Will the Ms Guy share that benefit with me?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

It is because we are dealing with the matter under the rules of racing and not in relation to criminal legislation.

As I must go for a vote, I must suspend the meeting for about ten minutes. My apologies for this but it is outside my control.

Sitting suspended at 6.49 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Senator Boyhan has left to go to the Seanad to speak but has said he will back to finish his questions. Deputy Martin Browne indicated he wanted to speak but I am not sure if he is back in his office. I will move on to Senator Paul Daly, who wants to ask another question.

I appreciate getting back in. I did not want to speak for too long at the start as I was conscious other members wanted to contribute.

I did not even notice the Senator did not speak for too long.

Believe you me, it was not long. I have a few questions mainly for the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board on its inspections. Is there a vet present at every inspection?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

No.

Why not? Does Dr. Hillyer not think it would be important for a vet to be present if a sample were being taken?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We do not. I will go back a stage. We have a range of different tasks we must complete on each inspection. When we appointed the panel of 12 authorised officers last year, we deliberately went outside the veterinary officer core team to make sure we had broad coverage of other skill sets. We have on the team somebody who used to be an authorised officer with the Department, people who have come from a security official background and a person who is an equine vet nurse. The only thing the veterinary officers would do in terms of procedures that the others cannot do is to take a blood sample. The Senator is correct on that. In terms of everything else-----

Will Dr. Hillyer repeat that? Only a vet can take a blood sample.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

Only a vet or an equine nurse can take a blood sample, which is covered under different legislation.

There is not always vet or an equine nurse present at all the board's inspections.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

No, but for inspections carried out on unlicensed premises where testing takes place, there will be a veterinary officer present because that is where the testing takes place. For other inspections, and this was in train before the authorised officer element came in, we would have had non-vets going out because it is important we achieve the coverage we need. As I said, our inspection process is intelligence-led and risk-based. In order to cover the number of premises we have to cover, we need to make sure we have a big enough team to do that. I do not have a team of 12 veterinary officers. The skills the others bring to us are as important as the skill of taking a blood sample. Of course, the veterinary officers on the team have a deeper understanding of veterinary matters. That goes without saying. We make sure we deploy the veterinary officers we have where they are really needed and we make sure the other skill sets are bought into play. For example, I mentioned one of the team was an authorised officer with the Department previously. His expertise and experience in taking statements and interviewing would far surpass ours. That mixture of skills was what was important to us. It is a very new role for us. It is not what we used to always do. We used to have a veterinary officer and an official go out on inspections five or ten years ago but that is not the case now.

Were many or any of the board's staff or vets interviewed by Dr. Suann for his report?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I could not give the Senator a list of exactly who Dr. Suann interviewed because, as I said, he was allowed access to everybody he wanted to speak with. I could obtain that for the Senator.

I would like to know that. For clarification purposes, I have two further questions. Dr. Hillyer noted the board is new to the game with respect to the authorised officer element. What is the role between the Department and the board when it comes to inspections? What ignites the need for an inspection? I will not mention any of the particulars of the case that was referenced. The case in Monasterevin was well documented and I read about it. I read somewhere that the Department was on site with the Garda and the site was sealed before the board was even informed.

Is that correct? Why was that? If the IHRB is responsible for this area, why did the Department not share the information it had until it had the crime scene, for want of a better term, sealed off and was in situ?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

It is an understandable question and it goes to heart of how we do what we do when working with our colleagues in the Department. There are some inspections we would carry out based on intelligence and risk that we have assessed, which we would not necessarily bring the Department in on. There are inspections the Department would carry out that it does not necessarily need or want us to be involved in until the appropriate time.

What are the differentiating factors?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

It depends on the reason for the inspection or the operation. I cannot comment on a particular operation but in broad terms, there are operations that do not require our presence because they may not have anything to do with racing. There are other operations where we will closely collaborate with the Department's authorised officers from the get-go. We will plan the operation with them and plan exactly how things will be accessed and carried out.

Regarding the earlier question as to what triggers an inspection, I can only speak for us. Perhaps Mr. Drea will speak for the Department's team. For us, it is a question of going through our normal risk register of all our licensed premises. Those that have not been inspected for a long time, such as those that had a previous positive or have come to light for whatever other reason, are visited more frequently or more regularly. Others, where we are satisfied there are no breaches of rules or issues, would be inspected less regularly. That is the baseline. There are other factors on top of that. If there is a welfare concern or we have intelligence about an animal or welfare compromise, that premises would go to the top of the list immediately. That inspection is then carried out as immediately as is possible. If we have intelligence about doping, medication or animal remedies, it will depend on what it is. That information will be assessed and that assessment will often involve colleagues in Mr. Drea's division, who will take appropriate action.

Maybe the Department would like to comment on this, without going into individual aspects of the case I mentioned. How did the Department get there first and why did it only inform IHRB when it was in situ?

Mr. Tim Drea

I cannot comment on the particular case because it is subject to an investigation, with the likelihood of a prosecution. In that case we suspected there were veterinary medicines that should not be there. As a principle, we keep the initial team as tight as we can. We always do that in the Department. We assess the number of people we need and who we might need to go in initially. Then we see what is there and we determine if we need additional people or other organisations. In principle, we keep it as tight as we can in our division. That is based on a long history of doing work with the Garda, GRI, IHRB and lots of other agencies.

I appreciate that. I thought at the time it was a little funny that the Department was there before the IHRB was even informed. When we first initiated these inquiries, we had the board before the committee with Ms Guy's predecessor, Mr. Egan. At that time, we were all receiving a lot of correspondence from people calling themselves whistleblowers or informants. They provided us with a lot of information, which they had provided to the IHRB and no action had been taken. Has any action been taken on the back of those informants? It goes back to the previous question as to what stimulates an inspection. Are there any outstanding files in the IHRB's offices with complaints from people identifying potential misuse? There were the previous time the board was before the committee. We were getting a lot of correspondence collectively from people who said they had informed the IHRB about issues. One line said, "I can bring you to the cabinet in the yard and show you what is in it", and no action was taken. We were given a commitment at the time that those correspondence and all future similar correspondence would be acted on. Is that the case?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

That is the case. Any correspondence or phone calls we receive that have a suggestion of a breach of rules or a welfare issue are acted upon.

Would there be an inspection?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

It depends on what the complaint or issue raised is. Where we have a welfare concern there would definitely be an inspection.

Has the information provided by the two people who contacted us then been acted on since? It had not been acted on at the time and we were given a guarantee that all correspondence would be acted on. Ms Guy can go back through the record of the previous meeting for those two specific cases. I forgot to bring the emails with me. Have those cases been acted on since?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We have acted on all the information we have received. It is important to stress that us acting on information may not always mean us literally getting in our cars and going to a yard. Acting on information can mean working up that information, in close collaboration with Mr. Drea's team, and putting the pieces of the jigsaw together. I could count on two hands the number of ongoing investigations where we are gradually working up the pieces of information we have. That involves putting pieces of information together and producing intelligence, which is then assessed and acted upon. As tempting as it is to go out and deal with something rapidly, that is not always the right answer. In a recent example, it took several weeks to pull the pieces together to make sure the necessary ducks were in a row. That includes working with a divisional office, Mr. Drea's team and our team to make sure we have boxed off the various issues that could arise. That way, when we do act, it is as effectively and as properly as possible.

Basically, the IHRB may still be working on the cases but there may be no evident action for the person who informed it about the issue. Can the witnesses confidently tell me that nobody will contact me tonight having watched this meeting to say they told the IHRB X, Y and Z and nothing ever happened?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

Not to my knowledge. I cannot speak to things that happened before I was in post but I have been in post since 2016 and anything that has been brought to my attention, I have acted on, elevated, escalated or taken to other people who have acted on it.

I ask the witnesses to come back to us on the two specific cases I talked about and let us know what action, if any, was taken. They are on the record of the previous meeting.

I am conscious of time so I will conclude quickly. In its opening statement, the IHRB states that between January 2022 and the end of April 2022, a total of 2,009 samples were taken. Of those samples, four returned some adverse analytical findings. It further states, "There have been 40 disciplinary hearings held by the IHRB so far this year, nine of which related to adverse analytical findings." What was the outcome of those disciplinary hearings? What were the sanctions? I know the witnesses cannot get into the granular detail but what were the outcomes of those hearings?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

All outcomes and decisions are published on the IHRB website. Does the Senator want me to focus on the disciplinary hearings?

I do. A lot of people tune in to these meetings. They are broadcast constantly, including online, and go out extensively. A lot of people follow this. I have had two media queries since I came into this meeting about what is happening. This is an opportunity for politicians but also for the IHRB to put the record straight. The witnesses are very good at setting our their stall and I commend them for that. They should not miss this opportunity. I ask Ms Guy to share that with the committee. People listening in are interested. This is an opportunity for the IHRB to put on the record its position on these matters.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

The decisions and outcomes for all disciplinary hearings, and any sanctions imposed, are published on the IHRB website following the outcome. As I said, there were 40 disciplinary hearings. The sanctions vary depending on the possible breach. It runs-----

Could Ms Guy share some samples of those hearings and outcomes? What are the top five?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Off the top of my head, there were a number of jockeys before us for various race-riding cases.

Sanctions ranged from cautions to suspensions for specified numbers of days. Some of the jockey cases we dealt with included interference, not riding the horse on merit and whip regulation beaches. Regarding adverse analytical findings in cases we have had, Dr. Hillyer might be in a better position to outline the sanctions.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

There is a range. The minimum sanction is €1,000, and the horse is inevitably disqualified from the race. There may be other stand-down periods or sanctions applied. The fine can then go up. There has been a €5,000 fine, and there has been a very significant fine recently. However, some of the cases are still undergoing process, so I do not believe I can comment on them.

I appreciate that. However, the more we can say about these sanctions, the greater the confidence instilled in people. I do not doubt the delegates' ability, commitment and integrity - absolutely not - but we have a job to instil public confidence. Therefore, the more we can share information on the sanctions, particularly for doping, the better. The rumours and allegations are rife. Anyone can hurl abuse at all sorts of people, but, as Dr. Hillyer rightly said, allegations must be substantiated. Due process is important. I acknowledge and accept all that but believe it is important that the public know more about the disciplinary procedures and sanctions. A fine of €1,000 does not strike me as very big in the world of equestrian sport. I ask the delegates to take this away as something really important.

With regard to developing laboratory testing capacity, the Department indicated that it does not see itself as having a role. I would have believed it would have been good for it to have a role because the Department has credibility, is held in high esteem and is somewhat removed from the industry. I would have believed this would have helped to instil confidence. It is all about confidence-building. What are the plans? I would like to believe all the testing can happen in the Republic of Ireland. It should happen here. I would not like to believe any of it is outsourced outside the State. What are the plans for the development of the testing?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

On the laboratory, we engage in public procurement given the extensive expenditure. It is open to laboratories internationally. Our focus is on the standard. We need to ensure the standards our samples are being tested to are the international ones. We have sought to ensure that any candidate for the tender process must meet those standards and at least be certified by the IFHA, which, as Dr. Hillyer has laid out, does the certification of laboratories. There are six laboratories internationally. We have asked that they at least meet certain standards, if not exceed them. Our focus is on ensuring that our samples are tested to the highest standard possible according to international best practice.

I thank Ms Guy. I would like to put my next question to all of our guests. With regard to the two reports, including the joint committee's report on the industry, with its 11 recommendations, not enough progress has been made. The independent review carried out by the IHRB resulted in 18 recommendations. I am aware that recommendations overlap. When do the delegates seriously believe these will be acted upon? If the delegates were to return here in three months at our suggestion, would they come here reporting a lot of progress? That question is for all the witnesses. It is really important. There is a sense of frustration over the slow progress. Let us be honest about it. This is about instilling confidence in the industry, not about persecuting it at any level. It is about having a very viable industry on which we can pride ourselves as Irish people. The Minister is absolutely committed to this. I do not doubt anybody's commitment. Therefore, how do the delegates believe we can arrive at the implementation of our 11 recommendations and, of course, the 18 recommendations in the independent review?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

It will take time. It would be wrong to say that we could come back here in three months with all the recommendations implemented. That is not a fair timetable for us to work to. At present, we are dealing with the reports by both the joint committee and Dr. Suann. We are working towards the 2023 budgetary cycle. It will be in the autumn of this year when we will have an understanding of what budget is available to us and when we will make proposals as to what we want to do.

This is going to be an ongoing job for us as members of a regulatory body. We can never stand still; we have to keep going. There will always be things that we can change and improve on. We will continue that work. Mr. O'Loughlin will also focus on that area. Between me and all my colleagues in the organisation, we are focused on the integrity of Irish horse racing and carrying out our work to the best of our ability, in addition to putting the structures in place to enable our staff and the volunteers to do their jobs. That is a very important part. We are welcoming the interest from the committee and are happy to come here to lay out what we do and ensure it is understood.

Would Mr. Osborne like to comment?

Mr. John Osborne

I would defend exactly what Ms Guy said. Irish racing has never had such a high reputation globally, but with that comes the expectation of ever-increasing standards. I would be disappointed if we came in here at any time and said "Job done" and that we were finished, because this is ever-evolving. We are dealing with a subject that involves dealing with people who are trying to cheat the system or whatever. We must be ever-vigilant about that. We will always be trying to get better and never be standing still.

On the specific recommendations, I stand over what I said earlier. Progress has been made on all fronts although some of it is slower than we would have liked, for reasons that are perfectly explainable but, to a certain extent, outside our control. However, we are doing things in the right way rather than at a specific pace because we want to get the right outcome regarding many of these recommendations. We are doing very well on the integrity and reputation front, which is so valuable to the Irish industry.

Do the representatives from the Department have a view?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

I am aware that Deputy Carthy in particular was not happy about things. We have made progress on all 11 recommendations but I accept that there are one or two on which we may have agreed to disagree. In general, however, progress has been good. On the traceability front, there is no point in pretending it will happen overnight. We have come a long way since we started around 2012 and a lot of progress has been made, but we are still a little bit away from where we are on the cattle front. Having said that, nothing stands still, even on the cattle front. By coincidence, while wearing a different hat today I was dealing with the electronic identification of cattle, with which some of the members will be very familiar. I was amused. We have a report from 1990, believe it or not, making a very compelling case for the electronic identification of cattle. Now, in 2022, we are finally at the point of having the electronic identification of cattle. Sometimes, even though there is a great idea and the case for it is made very strongly, it can take time to realise it. Since we live in a democracy, we have to bring stakeholders along with us. That is the reality of the world we live in. The position is somewhat the same on traceability and horses. There is a little way to go but we have come a long way. Many of the developments we talked about earlier, including the census and the electronic passports that were introduced for the first time last year, will lead to considerable progress in the next couple of years.

I thank our guests for attending. It is clear from their responses that they are on top of their game. I accept that there are certain things they could not share with us. We understand that on this side. I look forward to further engagement with the guests in the future.

I welcome the witnesses. The committee, Department, HRI and the IHRB should all be trying to work as quickly as possible to resolve these issues and restore confidence in the industry. We all know how important it is. I apologise for having had to go to another meeting. Some of the answers I have heard have been somewhat evasive. It is in everybody's best interest that we get answers as quickly as possible. No one is expecting the Department to do everything overnight or in a month, but there are issues on which it seems to be dragging its heels.

I will go through some of the recommendations. I apologise if they have been covered. Let me comment on recommendation 4. It has been stated that all blood, hair and urine samples taken by the IHRB within the past five years from licensed and unlicensed premises have been individually analysed and that all adverse analytical findings are subject to disciplinary procedures.

The Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board, IHRB, notes that it had concerns about the length of time taken to do the investigation and the disciplinary process. Why did the IHRB have concerns? What is the average length of time that a disciplinary procedure would take?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Can I just clarify that the Deputy's question is how long, on average, before a disciplinary procedure is concluded?

Yes. It was in the IHRB statement that it had concerns around the time taken for investigations and the disciplinary process. Why was the IHRB concerned? What is the average length of time before these would come in front of the board?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I will focus on the anti-doping or adverse analytical findings in relation to equines. Investigations are generally completed quite quickly. Sometimes a disciplinary process takes a bit longer to progress. I would also like to clarify that there is no average time and there is no set time. These investigations can take time. One might have quite a considerable amount of analyses to be done on samples to try to best identify the origin or the source of the adverse analytical finding. Perhaps Dr. Hillyer is better placed to answer this.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We are not ticking boxes here. As I said earlier, it is really important for us as a regulator, for the individual who is affected, for the owner, and for all of those involved with the horse, that as much as possible is understood as to why a substance has become present in a finding. It is not just a question of "Oh well, that is very nice and we will carry on". As my colleague has said, that investigation is initiated immediately on hearing any warning bells coming from the laboratory. What we have done, particularly in the last few years, is to focus all of our effort, attention and time on that phase of events. It can involve extended out-of-competition testing, repeat visits, and collaboration with colleagues in the Department. All sorts of stuff happens. I am happy that this is as good and as sharp as it can be. I would be first in the queue to say that I would love the rest of the process to be quicker. It has not been, but we are working on it and we are prioritising it. I want to be as good as we can be, and we want to be as good as we can be. When we compare ourselves with other processes in other jurisdictions, although it feels very slow to me, I am reminded that it is not actually that slow. It feels slow to me but it is not that slow. I hope this answers the question.

Dr. Suann "agrees with point 6 of the Committee’s observations regarding the introduction of Authorised Officers as this initiative will permit unprecedented access to all horses at various life stages for testing and inspection.". Can we talk about the training of these authorised officers? There is no mention made of the authorised officer manual. Will Dr. Hillyer give the committee an idea of the training that takes place and the reception that some of these officers get when they go into a yard?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I believe that I covered a little bit on the training the last time. Very briefly, the training started with an assessment and an introduction last year. Each of the panel of 12 were assessed in order for their suitability to go onto the authorised officer panel in the first place. There was training that was kicked off by the Department in the areas of legislation, animal remedies, processes such as statement taking and witness organisation, and those types of matters. We then really got into the job itself last year. The first inspections were carried out after 21 May when our warrant cards were issued. We have done a combination of on-the-job training and supports and training as needs have become identified. With regard to sessions and how we get together as a team, we have done the inevitable Zoom training, which had to happen because of remote methods being needed. We have got together in the room at our offices where we have pulled out vat loads of medicines to go through. Again, we have collaborated with colleagues in the Department as to what gaps we need to fill. Particular and specific medicines training is being delivered by an external provider. The list goes on. I would be very happy to provide a more detailed list if the committee is interested in what is being done.

The next key date on the horizon is actually happening in the middle of this month where we will get together with colleagues and authorised offices in the Department, and also colleagues working in the greyhound sector, to compare and contrast and look at how we are doing things. We will receive joint training together. That sort of synergy and collaboration is really important as part of our support to our team.

Each of the members of our team have come with different skill sets, as I have already gone through earlier. There has been specific bespoke training for certain individuals on, for example, how to use some digital equipment we have, on specific medicines, and on prescriptions for the non-vets. It has not been a one-size-fits-all. We have tried very hard to listen to the feedback from the team and support them on an individual basis, as well as doing the generic obligatory training.

Could we get a look at that authorised officer manual? What has the reaction been when they have gone into yards? Are they allowed to go into yards? If a garda comes up he or she would need a warrant to go into a house or into a farm. Are these officers allowed to just go in without a warrant?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

No, absolutely not. I will answer the third part first. When we attend a premises, as I said earlier, we try to behave as respectfully as we possibly can. Processes, training and all sorts of things could be going on in that yard at the time we go in. We will literally ring on the doorbell, unless there is a very good reason not to, which I already went into earlier. We will explain our presence. Normally, we would telephone the trainer or the person responsible first off. We will enter and introduce ourselves and present warrant cards, go through why we are there and explain very clearly what it is we need to do. I can honestly say that I have not had any resistance on any of the inspections that I have been on. I have had nothing but collaboration and co-operation from licensees and from non-licensees. Given that this was totally new for non-licensees last year we did try to work with the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association, ITBA to put out a question-and-answer session as to what to expect and we have tried to be very transparent about what we do. Even so, it was new. I have actually been very impressed and pleasantly surprised by how the vast majority of people are actually the opposite and say "We are very pleased to see you", or words to that effect. I am sure there are some who would rather we were not there but they certainly never say that or obstruct us, or cause any issue that has caused us to have to escalate matters.

As I said earlier the manual itself was intended and written as a training aid. It is an internal document. There are sections in there that are sensitive in terms of regulatory information. There are no secrets in there, however. We have had discussions with others in the Department about how we can share this information without compromising the operations that we do. I would like to find a way of doing that, even if we can just share the headlines of some of the sections in order that people can see what is in there, but perhaps some of the detail might need to come out. At the end of the day, we are all trying to achieve the same thing, which is to underline competence in these systems, while being transparent. I need to do that and I want to do that but we cannot undermine the systems themselves. At the end of the day this is-----

I appreciate that Dr. Hillyer cannot undermine the system, but even if we got the headlines that would help.

The Department manages the databases for all six passport-issuing organisations. We have spoken about this before with regard to micro-chipping of the dogs, which also has a number of databases that do not necessarily coalesce or communicate with each other. The report states that the Department database is centralised. Will the Department tell us is that a one-stop shop for checking microchips? For example, can vets access the databases themselves or must they contact the Department first?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

I am sorry but I missed the last part of the Deputy's question.

Can they access the databases themselves or do they have to contact the Department first before they access that information?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

Did the Deputy say "can a vet access it?".

Mr. Michael Sheahan

No. A vet cannot do that directly. At the moment the central database works whereby the six passport issuing bodies are all linked. They populate our central database. All the information in the central database comes from them, including the microchip number, the name of the horse, the registered owner, and so on. The public or the vets do not have access to the central database as such. If somebody needs information they must come through us, if they are entitled to access information. It is not open to the public to access it. It is usually, for example, if a horse is being slaughtered or if someone has an inquiry about a horse being exported. Then he or she can contact us and we can confirm the details of the horse or whatever, as needs be.

Are all of the databases centralised in one system?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

Yes, all of the information from the six separate entities such as Wetherby, Horse Sport Ireland, Leisure Horse Ireland, etc. All of the basic information about the horses is on our central database, which is part of our animal identification and movement, AIM, system.

I see that the Department shares information with the IHRB. What follow-up is done on leads that come from the public? I ask because that is not mentioned in any of the public statements or reports.

Mr. Tim Drea

The Department has an investigations division.

What follow-up is done with leads from the public?

Mr. Tim Drea

We assess whether the information is credible by cross-checking databases and do anything that we can to check its validity. If it is bona fide information and merits an inspection, search or whatever then we do so. We also engage with the IHRB but that depends on the circumstances.

Do the officials feel information from the public is followed up?

Mr. Tim Drea

Yes. The authorised officer status for IHRB, in terms of animal medicines in these types of equestrian premises, is a plus for us because it gives us additional resources and additional authorised officers on the ground, if we need them. So if we get information that we think is relevant to the IHRB then the IHRB-authorised officers can accompany us. That is an improvement on what existed before.

Recommendation No. 7 relates to CCTV. I note that the IHRB had to extend the standstill phase, which is regrettable and I note the reasons. Is the IHRB willing to stand over the suggestion that the initial timeline of mid-autumn will be kept to? Without divulging the details, nature and terms of the agreement entered into with Clardex Systems, can the officials say if the installation of CCTV cameras in sampling units, as suggested by Dr. Suann, will also take place?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I am confident that we can meet the installation timeline of mid-autumn and I can tell the committee now that the first installation will commence next Tuesday. CCTV cameras will be installed in all sampling units and in the wash-down areas that relate to sampling units.

Is the IHRB happy with the autumn deadline?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I am happy with the autumn deadline. We are working very closely with Clardex Systems. The site surveys have been completed for all 25 sites. We are starting installation and are working very hard to get to the autumn deadline.

I have no more questions and everything else has probably been covered. I will look back over the recording later and will put any remaining issues, if any, in an email.

I apologise for my late arrival but I had prior commitments and I have followed the debate online.

Obviously Dr. Suann's report is very informative and given us a good basis. I acknowledge the strides made by the IHRB. The delegation members probably feel they are under a microscope when they come in here. I am sure that everyone will acknowledge that progress has been made in this area . At the same time, I am sure that the delegation can appreciate the passion that Irish people have for horse welfare. Ireland has a proud tradition in this sector so at all times we must uphold the integrity of the industry and safeguard animal welfare.

Dr. Suann made 18 recommendations in his report. Has the IHRB embedded all of his recommendations in its plans? Is there a timeline for when they will be implemented? Reference has been made to CCTV and it is good to hear that the deadline is in the autumn. What stage has been reached with the rest of the recommendations and when will they be fully implemented?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Some of the recommendations have already been implemented, for example, the scanning in and out of units and everything. Dr. Suann noted in his report that some recommendations will require additional resources and, possibly, quite considerable additional resources. We are working through them with a view to proposals for the 2023 budget cycle. As the Deputy will know, we have an annual budget situation that can make it difficult to plan but we will see how best to phase in the recommendations to ensure that we can properly implement them.

In terms of budget 2023, can the IHRB indicate how much it will cost to implement the recommendations?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Not as yet, no.

Is there a ballpark figure?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I hesitate to give a ballpark figure. It will require additional resources in how we structure that.

In terms of the IHRB's preparatory work, obviously the IHRB engages with the Department. Has the IHRB found it accommodating to travellers on this road or have its expectations been reined in?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

We engage with the HRI. The HRI is allocated the funding so we work very closely with the HRI and, by extension, with the Department on our funding. It is an ongoing relationship. A number of stakeholders must be dealt with out of the same pot. However, the IHRB is very focused on the resources that we need to ensure that we can carry out our job to the best of our abilities. I know that our colleagues in the HRI and, I am sure our colleagues in the Department, will look favourably on further requests but I am conscious of other industries in terms of our budget.

The LGC has been in situ since 2018. When will the LGC contract end?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

The framework agreement will conclude this year and the contract could run until the middle of next year.

Dr. Suann has recommended that this country establishes its own independent state-of-the-art laboratory. Have the Department and racing bodies done any work on that project? Where are we with that?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I do not think that Dr. Suann recommended that a laboratory be established in Ireland but commented on the recommendation made by the committee. As I have said earlier, while our focus is on our standards we need to ensure that our samples are analysed to the highest standard. What we focused on in the procurement process - and the analysis of samples is a considerable part of our budget - was that certain standards must be met or exceeded.

Dr. Suann did not get involved with the issue of a laboratory because that was done independently by a UK statutory authority. Did he seek or request to analyse the integrity of the sampling process?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

He did in detail and he was sent videos. He requested exactly what footage he wanted and who he wanted to talk to. Literally, he conducted a nose to tail examination of how our samples are handled and treated.

Beyond what happened after in the laboratory, did he get access to that information or seek answers?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

He interviewed laboratory staff.

The IHRB has pointed out that its work is very intelligence led and in some respects that is understandable. However, it may be an operational flaw in that the IHRB depends on legislation. I was struck by one of the points made by Dr. Hillyer in terms of who is identified with testing. So if somebody has a better track record or if they have been tested before and seem to be doing okay then they are less likely to get more frequent testing.

I appreciate Dr. Hillyer is relatively new to her role and that the IHRB is an organisation that is very much in an evolutionary mode. Does she see a phase where we will reach a certain point? It is always good to have intelligence and it is important that we encourage whistleblowers. Does she envisage we will have reached utopia when we have a structured situation whereby anybody at any time is at risk of an inspection? I do not mean that people should live in fear but they should aspire to knowing that if they get an inspection, it will be head and shoulders above the rest.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

That would be part of our current process, apologies if I have not been clear. Although the intelligence-led part is a really important part of what we do so is the risk-based part.

There is also the baseline habitual testing, for want of a better way of putting it, or habitual inspections. All these layers form part of any modern anti-doping regime and that is what we have. Although the intelligence-led part or a welfare issue, if there is one, would take precedence over everything, there is also a baseline of testing going on the whole time. It is the same on the track.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We have a number of so-called random samples that are taken on track, which means there is that element of unpredictability. It is exactly as the Deputy says - anybody should be expecting to be tested or inspected at any time. There are not any places that are off-limits, if that makes sense.

Good. To go back to Ms Guy, Senator Paul Daly spoke in some detail about the live alerts the board has. How many does it have on its system at the moment?

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Is the Deputy referring to complaints?

Yes, complaints, tip-offs, alerts or whatever. It is hard to come up with a good term for them.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

I appreciate that. It depends. I would say-----

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I was about to say we have between 12 and 15 open investigations at the moment. There are others that will be ongoing depending on the results of other investigations.

Ms Cliodhna Guy

Yes.

Yes. From the time the board gets a phone call or an anonymous letter, or whichever other way the information comes, what is the average timeline before the board closes off the file?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

It depends what it is. An inspection could be triggered the same afternoon the information comes in and it could be resolved that same day, extending through to a very extensive, organised, cross-organisational investigation that could take months, in all honesty, or longer.

Good. I have just one question left for the board. I appreciate our guests may not have the answer now but they can send one in afterwards. Ms Guy referred to 2,900 samples. Benchmarking has been done with many other racing industries globally. How do we track, pro rata and per head of horse population, with our international peers?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

We are on a par with our nearest neighbours without a doubt. We have a similar sampling pressure, sampling density, when compared with our nearest neighbours across the water. Compared with other jurisdictions, such as possibly France Galop and some of the Australian jurisdictions, we do not do as much and increasing our on-course testing was in Dr. Suann's report. I welcome that. We had some of these plans in mind. We set out in 2019 in our strategic plan that we wanted to increase certain types of testing. Pre-race testing is the one that has received a lot of coverage but also on-arrival testing and less predictable testing on-track. Where we want to get to now is to work on that. To be honest, I have been focused on the out-of-competition testing for the past two to three years. We had to get our percentage of out-of-competition testing up from where it was and we have done that now. We certainly are not going to rest on our laurels but we now need to increase our on-track testing.

That is true and I appreciate the progress the board is making. Is it part of its business plan to reach a testing target per head of the horse population? Does it aspire to reach any such target?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

That is a good question. The figure that has been bandied around and talked about in the past in general terms of horse racing regulation is 10% of the population. I would like it to be a little higher than that, in all honesty, given the significance-----

Will Dr. Hillyer remind me where we are at the moment with that?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

If we take our in-competition and out-of-competition testing, we are not a million miles from that. I will come back to the Deputy with exact figures, if I may. To answer that question accurately, one would need to have some estimation of the number of horses in unlicensed premises. That is the problem. I could tell the Deputy very easily for our licensed premises but it is the-----

What is the figure for the licensed premises?

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I will come back to the Deputy on that.

That is no problem.

Dr. Lynn Hillyer

I will provide that figure. The unlicensed figure is a challenge, however.

That is great. I thank our guests from the IHRB for being so forthright.

I have a question for the Department. Passports come up every time we bring officials from the Department before us in the context of animal welfare. Deputy Martin Browne touched on the issue. Lower down the food chain in the horse industry, when we move into sports horse territory where horses may not necessarily be as valuable, and especially in the area of leisure horses, there is significant concern about the policing and monitoring of passports. I am not sure which of the officials were at a previous hearing at which I referred to one owner who contacted me having checked the register and found that 24 horses were registered to him. Although he only had six horses at the time, the register indicated he owned 24 horses. When he checked, several of the horses were dead and a number had been exported but no effort had been made to update the register.

I appreciate Mr. Sheahan's point on the length of time it is taking to get us to where we are with cattle. At the same time, I can go into SuperValu in Longford and see what farm my striploin has come from. It is not many years since we had the horsemeat scandal in the UK. It is an issue for the integrity of the food chain. In the context of the Department's commitment and priorities, how close are we to seeing a realistic effort to resolving the horse passport issue? Will there be a statutory responsibility, not dissimilar to what we have for cattle, on horse owners to ensure they update the register? They are certainly not doing that at the moment, especially in the leisure and sport horse sector.

Mr. Michael Sheahan

Regarding the Department's commitment, there is no question we are committed to it. Maybe sometimes we beat ourselves up a bit too much about how bad things are, as the Deputy mentioned, going down the food chain. I am certainly not trying to say things are perfect - far from it. At the same time, it is fair to say things have improved a hell of a lot, certainly in the last ten years. By way of example, members will all be familiar with Ballinasloe Horse Fair, which is the biggest of its kind. It is for the sport horse and leisure horse sector. We first got involved in the Ballinasloe fair 12 or 14 years ago. There is a very good committee there and it is a very well-organised event that attracts considerable international attention. We got involved with the committee and the Garda in relation to checkpoints for horses going to the fair. I cannot remember off the top of my head what year we first got involved but it was probably 2006 or 2007. In the first year, we accompanied gardaí at checkpoints on all the entries into Ballinasloe. At that stage, the number of horses with passports was probably 10% or something of that order. In that first year, when we did the manned checkpoints, we took a very benign approach. We asked people if they knew they were supposed to have a passport for their horse but allowed them to continue on. However, we said we would be back again next year and told people they might be turned away. We went back for a number of years subsequently and within the space of a short number of years, compliance levels at the Ballinasloe fair had gone from 10% to 99%. Even at that fair and places like it, there was a realisation that things had changed and a passport was required. Even from the point of view of selling a horse and whatever, anyone who does not have a passport when selling a horse will be more or less at nothing. I am not trying to whitewash this or say every horse in the country is microchipped and passported. Not all of them are and there are still problem areas.

I will give another measure of how much things have improved. Everybody has noted that animal welfare is hugely important and it is one of the main issues we are here to talk about. If we take the figures on the control of horses and the number of horses seized by local authorities over the years, they show that the numbers have decreased dramatically since the peak in 2013 and 2014. Again, that is not to say the problem is solved - far from it - but-----

What percentage of horses are not registered or microchipped?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

Unfortunately we do not know that. That is one of the problems.

We have moved from discussing the report but we will finish on this issue shortly. When we discussed it with the Department two or three years ago, it provided figures showing that 19% of horses were not registered or microchipped, I should say.

Mr. Michael Sheahan

Yes. As I said, there is no way of providing proof. I can only give examples of the likes of the Ballinasloe fair. When we do checks there, we find the number of horses microchipped and passported is close to 100%. Nobody is turning up in Ballinasloe at the time we have checkpoints without a passport or microchip. As I said, the figures for horses seized by the local authorities, which are often an indication of the scale of the problem, were close to 5,000 as recently as 2013 and 2014. These are stray and abandoned horses, etc.

By 2019 that was down to just over 1,000 and last year it was down to under 400. That is not to say the problem is solved; far from it. However, we are in a far better position in terms of the scale of the problem than we were ten years ago.

I appreciate that. The Chair would be used to a better quality of horse than I would be. He is not that engaged with the Ballinasloe horse fair. Where are we with an equine census or how close is it?

Mr. Michael Sheahan

We discussed it a bit earlier. We had the first equine census in November last year and we will have a second one in November of this year. The first time we did it, it would be fair to say it was not as successful as we would have liked because we ran into unexpected technology problems. Normally our technology in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is superb and I mention our animal identification and movement, AIM, database and our animal health surveillance. However, for one reason or another the technology let us down with people being unable to do the census online and a lot of people had to resort to paper in the end, which was a bit frustrating. We have learned a lot from that and we will be repeating the census in November 2022. The first census has been completed and the data are being worked on. It is a big step forward but we still have a bit to go.

I would like to thank the witnesses for participating in today's meeting and we had a worthwhile discussion. Hopefully our recommendations continue to be worked on. As I said at the start, the integrity and reputation of the sport is always what we want to protect and we are all singing from the one hymn sheet on that. Hopefully we can report that we will continue to make progress on the recommendations.

The next meeting of this joint committee will take place at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 June 2022, when the committee will hear from the CEO of Horse Racing Ireland on the strategic priorities for horse racing in Ireland.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.02 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 June 2022.
Barr
Roinn