Mr. Andrew Coonan:

I appreciate the opportunity. I am accompanied by Mr. Ruby Walsh, a champion jockey, and Mr. Michael Kinane, a former champion jockey. The submissions are already before the committee and I hope it has had the opportunity to consider them.

First, I would adopt the position taken by my colleagues who have spoken already in welcoming the general scheme of the Bill and, more importantly, the vital necessity to deal with the adequate funding of the industry. In that regard, the obvious point is that the Betting (Amendment) Bill 2013 needs to be addressed without delay.

Our submission raised four particular issues with the committee which are reflective of the position of jockeys' association. First, under head 4, on the HRI body corporate, the jockeys take the view that they are entitled to and should be given a position on the board as opposed to the sub-committee, being the industry services committee. It is difficult to understand at this point in time why the jockeys, being to the forefront and the representatives of the industry, both abroad and to the public generally, are not in the position of having a board seat. As I set out, it is important to differentiate the position of the jockeys from that of those working within the industry otherwise. In particular, I would highlight that the jockeys, being self-employed, are entirely dependent on the prize money in racing. Other staff members working within the industry are employed and covered by legislation to protect them in those circumstances. My colleague, Mr. Walsh, would point out that three of his 16 professional years have been spent in injury and without earning. While jockeys are not in a position to race ride, they have no protections other than those that are given to themselves. Therefore, they must be in a position to represent themselves at the board by way of addressing those issues. Funding, such as charitable funds and pensions funds, are all matters that they have put in place for themselves, but they must be protected. From that point of view, I would ask the committee to consider their position in terms of a seat on the board itself.

The second issue I would ask the committee to consider relates to the racing regulatory body, which I addressed in the submission. The power of the racing regulatory body should be considered. The power vested in the racing regulatory body with regard to disqualification and imposition of penalties is excessive insofar as it is ungoverned under the 1994 Act and there is no position under head 11 that such should be governed. Effectively, the racing regulatory body will have unfettered power to disqualify or suspend persons licensed by the body for extended periods of time - a privilege or advantage which is given to that body over other similar bodies, such as the Medical Council and the Law Society. It is incumbent on the proposed legislation to provide limits to that power that is already being vested in it. We do not object to the power itself, but it must be controlled and appropriate amendments need to be incorporated into the proposed Bill.

Dealing with the specific issue as set out at head 7, prize money, I would address the committee to section 27 which makes provision for the racing regulatory body to deal with the issue of charitable funds. While it is welcome that the HRI has the authority under the proposed legislation to make directives with regard to prize money, the check or balance in relation to charitable funds exists and is given to the racing regulatory body. The difficulty with it is that the jockeys' pension, which is specific to the jockeys, is not a charitable fund although they have other funds which they have put in place for themselves. That is not a charitable fund and, therefore, it is within the power of the board of HRI to amend prize money contributions to the pension, if it so wishes, without recourse to the jockeys' association. That is crucial because the pension, which presently works in terms of a sportsman's pension, is provided to these riders once they qualify at age 50. The power to amend that is given exclusively to the HRI under the proposed Bill without any recourse to the jockeys' association. I suggested an amended wording. I think this is an oversight rather than anything else. It can be readily addressed by virtue of the wording we considered and provided in the submission.

Finally, there is the issue of the media rights. The media rights, under the 1994 Act, as the committee will be aware, are given exclusively to the race courses with administration or distribution through Horse Racing Ireland. That is inappropriate. It is unreasonable that the jockeys' association and other industry bodies within the organisation do not have any entitlement under this or the previous legislation to any of the media rights money that is being generated. That can be subject to challenge. The proposed Bill presents the opportunity to address that issue and I would implore the committee to consider that.

I am available to answer any of the committee's questions, as are my colleagues who can speak to the day-to-day relevant issues for jockeys.