Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

There are significant parts of this provision which remain unchanged but I shall take the committee through the changes.
Head 11(a) provides that the racing regulatory body is "to solely and independently be responsible for the making .... and enforcing of the Rules of Racing" which is critically important. It will also be very important to the racing regulatory body that its integrity function is independent.
We included the phrase "following consultation with HRI". That does not suggest HRI has an
imprimatur over the modification of the rules of racing. However, it is sensible that when making rules that may impact on the cost associated with the administration of racing, or the cost to any of the participants in racing, that one would at least consult the HRI. The term used is "consultation" which means it does not require agreement.
Head 11(1)(c) refers to licensing racecourses which is the function of the Turf Club. The highlighted section states "subject to the licence fees being paid by the applicants to HRI." The provision streamlines the administrative function. As I mentioned earlier, and I shall reach it shortly, in order to avoid any undue interference with property rights the advice from the Office of the Attorney General was that if we streamline the function in this way the fees would have to be repaid to the Turf Club in order to avoid any interference with property rights. That would have to be done.
Head 11(1)(d) states:

to set charges for licences, registration of hunter certificates and participants in point to point steeplechases subject to consultation with HRI and having regard to the annual budget agreed under section42.

The new phrase in the provision is "subject to consultation". The provision does not suggest that HRI has an imprimatur over the fees to be charged but it must be consulted.
Head 11(1)(g) refers to codes of practice and assurance schemes for matters within its functions. These are additional functions which reflects current good practice and they give the Turf Club a little bit more flexibility in terms of how it chooses to apply its integrity function.
Head 11(1)(h) states "to ensure that the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Regulations for Point-to-Point Steeplechase .... are enforced." In other words, this is a direct consequence of the earlier wording which indicates that the rules of racing apply to point to points and, de facto, reflects the current reality.
I now refer the committee to the highlighted section on page 23. The provision reflects the advice we received from the Office of the Attorney General on the protection of the property rights of the racing regulatory body. To be clear, we want to streamline the administrative functions but we do not want to unduly interfere with anybody's property rights. I mean to the extent that HRI will be processing payments which relate to functions of the racing regulatory body, then it will have to give that money back to the racing regulatory body. That includes "its registration of hunter certificates or registration of participants in point to point steeplechases", which refers to its registration functions only, and "fines under the Rules of Racing." The provision is based on clear advice received from the Office of the Attorney General.