Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 19 May 2010
38 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Tourism; Culture and Sport if she has received representations from the Irish Rugby Football Union regarding the threat to income that the change in broadcasting arrangements will pose for the organisation; if she is concerned that this will jeopardise the development of the sport; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20602/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraI recently met with representatives of the Irish Rugby Football Union who briefed me on the organisation's opposition to the proposals by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to make a number of additions to the current list of designated events of major importance to society, thus making them free-to-air for Irish television viewers. The IRFU considers that any form of change to the existing designated list would have a very significant impact on revenues to the organisation which would impact greatly on its grass roots programmes and lead to an exodus of professional players to other jurisdictions. The IRFU advised me that the proposals would undermine the economic model on which the funding of Irish rugby is based.
I have also met representatives of the GAA to discuss the proposals as they relate to Gaelic games although the proposals do not have the same impact on the GAA as they do on rugby.
Under legislation, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is required to consult with me before bringing forward any changes to the designated list. I already had informal discussions with the Minister about his proposals. He has now written to me seeking my views and I intend to fully engage with the Minister on this issue while consulting further with the relevant national governing bodies.
There is a need to maintain a balance between the rights of the public to have free to air access to sports events and the rights of sporting bodies to fund and thereby sustain and develop their sport.
I am not sure after that reply whether the Minister agrees with the IRFU or with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. There are all kinds of perspectives involved — sport, tourism and Ireland's image abroad generally. Professional rugby is the second most successful sport Ireland has after horse racing and is one for which we are well known in Europe. It reflects very well on all of us to have the kind of name we have in rugby.
I do not know whether the Minister understands the fragile nature of the funding model rugby has in conjunctions with its partners, namely, the unions and various federations around Europe. If the linchpin of that funding model is pulled out the whole edifice collapses. As the Minister noted, there are four professional teams and there is no way they could be maintained without present funding. They will lose players to other clubs in Britain, France and other countries where rugby is a well-funded sport. Performances will deteriorate and audiences will dwindle away, with a trickle down effect on schools and clubs.
This is a case of the kindly doctor over-prescribing and killing the patient. It may be well motivated but is ill advised. The Minister has a real responsibility to defend the sport and ensure it will survive. I understand there is to be a further consultation period and the Minister is entitled to be consulted, as she should be. I ask her to make the strongest possible representations to her Cabinet colleague in this regard.
The IRFU has engaged in a number of partnerships. One such is with the Government in so far as between 2006 and 2010 more than €17.5 million was invested directly in the IRFU, outside of any capital expenditure. One may consider the €191 million that went into the Aviva stadium which opened only last week. The organisation also has commercial partnerships and is tied into these with other countries and these issues also must be considered.
Sport is for all and should be for all and participation at the broadest base possible should be encouraged. That is one of my aims. However, there is a balance to be found between participation by viewers and being able to encourage the sport at grass roots level while maintaining the professional element involved. There is no doubt that rugby has given us great sporting heroes and great success in recent years. That success breeds success because the sport has expanded hugely on the ground.
The IRFU made very strong arguments in regard to its financial commitments and its commercial partnerships and how it spends that money, not only in supporting professional players but in supporting the development of junior players, which last I support. On the other hand, there are very good arguments to be made about ensuring people can have access to viewing our great games and our national games. This balance now must be discussed during the consultation process. It is about who we are.
The national games are——
I accept there are arguments on both sides. That is why the consultation period has been extended until 4 July, which will give people ample opportunity to be able to make their case. I will make a formal submission to the Minister but I will also be engaging with the IRFU.
It is disturbing that the Minister does not appear to have a point of view. She has outlined the arguments on both sides but what is her perspective on the matter? Does she support the IRFU and the case being made that this will destroy Irish rugby, or does she support the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, who had a rush of blood to the head when he thought an Irish side would get into the Heineken Cup final?
The value of a consultation process and my being a formal part of it is that we can have engagement, as we have had already on an informal level. The formal process will take place between now and 4 July to balance the different arguments. I will be carrying all the different views into that consultation.
Is that a "Yes" or a "No"?
That is what the consultation will be about.
I have to hand it to the Minister. She is good.
39 Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Tourism; Culture and Sport if she has received the report from the Irish Sports Council into the serious issues that have developed in the Athletics Association of Ireland; when this report will be published; if she has, or plans to, launch an independent investigation into the issue; her views on the behaviour of the Irish Sports Council on this matter; if her attention has been drawn to other issues surrounding sports bodies which receive funding from the Irish Sports Council; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20855/10]
Amharc ar fhreagra40 Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Tourism; Culture and Sport if she has received a report from the Irish Sports Council regarding the case involving Athletics Ireland; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20626/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 39 and 40 together.
I have received the report from the Irish Sports Council, ISC, referred to by the Deputy. It is my intention to place the report on the Department's website, subject to legal advice, when I have fully considered the issues contained in it. I will also be shortly meeting with representatives of the ISC and take the opportunity to discuss the report with them.
As I have previously stated in the House, from a legal perspective, I have no role in the day to day operations of the ISC. Under section 9 of the Irish Sports Council Act 1999, the council has to have regard to Government policy and to comply with any general policy directive which may be given by me as the Minister but it is not under my control. The council is established as a corporate entity with legal personality and is responsible for its own activities.
I have no plans at this stage to launch an independent investigation into this issue. What is important is that we learn how we can avoid this happening in the future. There is a need to learn from this issue about the relationship between the ISC and the national governing bodies of sport, particularly the interaction between them and whether other processes should be used. I am always in favour of using mediation processes in the first instance where they are available, irrespective of the difficulties, and at all times we should avoid recourse to the courts if possible. I consider that there is great potential for the Just Sport Ireland initiative, which was established by the Federation of Irish Sports in 2007 as a specialised independent arbitration and mediation facility. At my first meeting with representatives of the Irish Sports Council, I made it clear to them that I believe that mediation should always be used in the first instance to avoid the type of circumstances we see in this case.
I am concerned that there will not be an independent report on this. There are three different groups involved in the issue which prompted this debate. In the order of €800,000 of what is effectively public money has gone down the Swanee and this should not have been allowed. I welcome the Minister's suggestion that she is in favour of mediation but surely there must be more. There must be some process whereby a condition of funding is that mediation will take place. That did not happen in this case.
There is another major issue which I raised at the committee. A person who came before the committee went to the High Court and was quoted as saying that he tried to avoid answering questions, doing much prevarication and spoofing. It is absolutely appalling that a witness before an Oireachtas committee would go to the High Court and describe such occurrences at the committee. If this is the case with a sporting organisation which gives evidence before a committee, it is not good enough and we should sort out the issue.
Has the Minister any plans to review the remit of the Irish Sports Council and is there a need for new legislation? The council is defining itself and there are many issues that have not been addressed in the way funding was drip-fed to particular organisations. There seems to be a level of dysfunction in what is happening with various sporting organisations and the Irish Sports Council. As a matter of urgency, these should be addressed.
In the first instance I regret and object to funding given to a sporting organisation being used to fight law cases rather than going into sport.
That must be stopped.
The Irish Sports Council would argue that the direct funding to organisations has not been affected, although it meant there was no money in the contingency fund for events that might arise during the year. Ultimately, money was lost to sporting organisations, which should not have happened. For that reason I said that where disputes arise, as they inevitably will, the mediation process should be used. I suggested it could be used as a condition but it was argued that some organisations might not be ready for that. A number of organisations have already signed up for Just Sport and using mediation; 17 organisations are taking part and five more are about to do so. It is all the better if the process continues with the organisations.
There are a number of other issues. It was a mistake for me to indicate last month that the settlement was confidential; I presumed this was the case but it was not a confidential settlement. There was no admission of liability and the settlement was made in court. The cost included the settlement and legal costs, with the total amounting to over €300,000. That money could have gone to sport.
Several issues must be addressed. The first is the involvement of mediation and arbitration in the settlement of disputes. The second concerns corporate governance training for the organisations. There is also the issue of clarifying the relationship between the Irish Sports Council and the organisations; the council exists to support and develop sport and should help organisations in doing so. It is necessary to have a policy on the recruiting of strategically important senior posts within organisations. All those issues arise immediately from this case and I expect the Irish Sports Council to deal with them.
An important part of the question relating to an independent report was not answered. The Minister indicated we must learn from what has happened but I suggest this will not happen unless we get a full independent report into what exactly happened. It is not good enough that the Irish Sports Council, which forms one part of the triangle, is doing a report. That is not independent and will not serve sports or the Irish taxpayer very well.
Having read the report, I am not convinced that another report will solve anything. We know the issues and what needs to be done. The report presented to me was in the form of a letter from the Irish Sports Council setting out the issues. It attached the proceedings from the court, which I already had but which gave all the arguments made by the plaintiff. Neither the Irish Sports Council nor Athletics Ireland got the opportunity to give their side of the argument in court because a settlement was made. Between the letter and the proceedings from the court, we have the overall picture. We know what was said, by whom and when. Issues have undoubtedly arisen and some which I referred to a few moments ago need to be addressed.
We know what happened and I am not sure we need an independent inquiry to tell us what happened. We must consider the issues to ensure it does not happen again.
I am interested in the Minister's statement that she knows what has happened and needs to be done. Perhaps she might tell us what needs to be done. I was also interested in her comments on the relationship between the Irish Sports Council and the governing bodies. I agree that it has reached a critical point. Deputy Mitchell raised the question of this report in the past and the need for an independent report. It is unacceptable that the report comes from one side of the battle.
I had four questions disallowed today which dealt with the relationship between the Irish Sports Council and governing bodies. In reply to Deputy Mitchell the last day in dealing with this report, the Minister suggested that we should see that this does not happen again. It is already happening in the boxing association, which my disallowed question dealt with. There is a dysfunctional pattern building between the Irish Sports Council and governing bodies.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I am not apportioning blame to sides but this matter should be examined. There is a high-performance director who was not appointed in the boxing sector but who brought all the medals and glory to us. That director has been offered a position with another nation.
The basketball association will be having its AGM in a couple of weeks time. It is on its knees and its staff have been told that their employment cannot be guaranteed past June.
The Deputy is making a speech rather than asking a question.
I have a letter with me from a parent whose daughter has been picked for an international basketball team. She must pay €2,500 if she is to play.
I want to allow the Minster to reply.
This is a new system of pay-for-play.
I wish to clarify something. The settlement in the case amounted to €309,283, of which the Irish Sports Council's contribution was €150,000. Its legal costs amounted to €225,000. I wish to clarify this in case I gave the wrong impression.
We know what occurred because we have both sides of the story. We have the sports council's account in the form of a letter and we have the court proceedings, which constitute the plaintiff's account. Mediation, governance and recruitment into important posts are three of the issues that must be addressed.
Deputy O'Mahony raised two important issues about boxing, which is not only important in terms of sport, but also in the context of our Olympic hopefuls, given the fact that 12 of our 23 Olympic medals have come from boxing. Basketball is also important. The sports council, which gets almost €50 million per year, will give €864,048 to basketball this year. I do not know why the association claims it cannot keep its staff, as this is a significant amount of money. The council supports associations and governing bodies in drawing up job descriptions and participating in recruitment panels, etc. It is important that all recruitment should be open and transparent.
With regard to boxing, the Irish Sports Council, ISC, has stated it will withdraw funding to the Irish Amateur Boxing Association for the posts that have been appointed. What is the Minister's opinion on this matter? The situation cannot continue.
It is a matter for the ISC, but it is important that all appointments be made in an open and transparent way. I hope that any difficulties between the council and an important sport like boxing can be resolved. The funding for this year is €959,000, which could go a long way in boxing.
The Minister keeps saying it is a matter for the sports council, but that is at the heart of the matter. There is a level of dysfunction between the sports council and the governing bodies of the various sporting organisations. There is a need to review the role and responsibilities of the council and there may be a need to introduce legislation.
We have learned of a big spat with the Athletics Association of Ireland, AAI, and we now know of another with the amateur boxing association. Where will it stop? We are also aware of other issues. The learning curve is slow indeed and the legislation needs to be reviewed.
The legislation probably encompasses enough of what the ISC is trying to do. A clear policy on recruiting strategically important senior positions into the governing bodies is necessary and the ISC has indicated to me it wants this to be done in order that the process can be as open and transparent as possible.
It does not interfere——
In respect of boxing, the council has indicated that its decision only applies to the two specific posts that have been in question in recent weeks and that the priority is to ensure a minimum of impact on boxers and to see the men's senior team participating in the European championships. In the past month, the boxers have met with considerable success on the international stage, so the situation is not impacting on them.
We need transparency at that level. While there is no need for a change in legislation, clarification of the relationship and the support the ISC can give is necessary.
Is further legal action pending in respect of the AAI as a result of the original case? This matter is in the public domain.
No. My understanding is that the settlement ended all future legal action, including before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, etc.
That is not the information we have.
Deputy O'Mahony is on the same wavelength as me.
It was in last weekend's Sunday Times.
Perhaps this matter could be followed up by the appropriate committee.
We are discussing vast amounts of money and potentially significant costs for sport and the taxpayer if further legal cases are pending, which we believe to be the case.
