Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank both parties for their comprehensive overview. Besides our discussion on the heads of the Bill, updating us on their organisations' activities has been helpful, but perhaps they might expand further. The Chairman has covered a lot of ground, but the witnesses identified some of the benefits in this extensive legislation. They referred to the powers, anti-doping, etc., all of which are important. However, I am yet to be convinced. I understand the necessity of bringing the bodies together from a strategic point of view, as Mr. Mulvey stated.

I do not get the sense that the public or people involved in sport will see any great difference as a result of this merger. I think it has more to do with the Government's agenda in relation to the abolition of quangos. When in opposition the two parties in government created huge hype around organisations like those presenting here today and other State agencies or entities, giving the impression that there was something bad about them and we needed to rid ourselves of them. The reality is that most of those organisations do important work. I would like to hear more about how in the delegates' view sport will benefit from the two agencies being brought together. Mr. Benton made the point that the remit of the agency will now be broader in terms of dealing with other facilities around the country. That could be done relatively easily by giving the National Sports Campus Development Authority more extensive jurisdictional powers than it currently has. I am not against the amalgamation or the legislation but I believe the case for the merger of the two organisations has not been made to the extent that it might, other than it being a follow through on this quango reduction crusade, which the Minister, Deputy Varadkar and others championed when in opposition.

Reference was made to governance and so on. An issue that arose previously for the Irish Sports Council was that of conflict of interest among board members, in respect of which an investigation was launched and the council ended up in the courts. The council was to some extent admonished by the judge when as a result of the injunction the investigation had to be stood down. Does this legislation provide an appropriate mechanism for dealing with such an event were it to arise again or with any concerns which either organisation might have? For example, does the legislation provide a mechanism which puts the agencies on a sounder footing in terms of proceeding in relation to specific issues that arise and does it clarify what is and is not acceptable, what is and is not a conflict of interest and so on? I have read the relevant section and based on my understanding of the issue that arose previously, from my reading of it in the newspapers, it is not entirely clear to me that what is provided in that section would resolve that issue were it to arise again.