Mr. Andrew Coonan:

I will deal with the points raised by Deputies Heydon and Penrose. On the question of whether there is a better way of doing this, I would answer in the negative by pointing out there is a worse way of doing it. The board, as it currently exists, works quite well in so far as it is reflective, as Mr. Meade observed, of much of what is happening within the industry. As to whether it might need to be expanded or more focused, my view is that it certainly should be more representative. I have already raised that point with regard to jockeys. An ability to take views from those participating in it is absolutely vital to the progression of any industry. The existence of a regulatory board is appropriate at this point in time but should be developed further. Senator O'Neill asked whether the board should be larger. As I said, what is important, in my view, is that its composition should be reflective of those who are involved. That will be of benefit to the industry itself.
Some of the points raised might be more relevant to the two men who are here today but perhaps less so to the guy who is riding one or two horses per week and is essentially subsisting. Jockeys themselves have put in place a pension structure, for instance, under which money from the higher prize earners goes towards those who are less fortunate and who quite often find themselves in very difficult situations. It is absolutely vital, as I see it, within the whole prize money structure, that jockeys would be able to continue to look after themselves and their colleagues. I accept that their interests are sectional, but it is vital that they should have the ability to look after their own in that regard. That is why representation on the board is crucial.
Deputy Penrose referred to charges and costs. A 4% transaction charge is actually very high in terms of the cost to the owner, jockey and trainer. That has to be addressed and an obvious way of doing it is by way of a betting amendment and an increase in the tax. Greater prize money will lead to greater funding on a cascade effect. That, in turn, should see a reduction in transactional charges and costs. Certainly, that is what the board should be working towards. It is a very obvious way of addressing the issue in a way that encourages owners into the industry and keeps them involved.
I do not have a problem with the racing regulatory board per se, but there must be checks and balances in place which ensure a strong and robust system and integrity within the industry. That is absolutely vital because the betting industry depends on that integrity. I am concerned that the proposed amendment does not address the fact that the racing regulatory body, the Turf Club, effectively has carte blanchein terms of penalties imposed. There is no upper limit on the penalty to be imposed on a trainer, rider or any licensed person by the regulatory board. We have an opportunity here to address this problem with the 1994 Act. This issue has been raised in another forum and is currently sub judice. That the legislation currently in place prescribes no upper limit for the racing regulatory board in terms of penalties it can impose and so on is not acceptable. However, this can be readily addressed in the very same way as the parameters within which other semi-State bodies work are defined in legislation.
To clarify, I am not necessarily asking for an independent board or a new appeals system, but the right to redress should be limited in terms of cost and available to all who are subject to sanction. I am calling for the Bill to limit the powers of the regulatory body in terms of the penalties it can impose, or at least set bounds to them. The question of the automatic entitlement to address the High Court is, in fact, currently under consideration by way of a Supreme Court appeal. Heretofore, the racing regulatory body was not regarded as amenable to judicial review.