Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Turf Club representatives for their presentation today and the different elements of it. Integrity has been discussed with all of the different stakeholders we had here before now, including the importance of ensuring it. As I have recorded here before, integrity is something one takes for granted when one has it and if one loses it, it takes a long time to get it back. The discussions we had earlier with the racecourse representatives on who had the right to the pot of money flowing from media rights would all be for nothing if we lost our integrity. The money that would be available in television rights in future would all be lost. It is in everyone's interest that we maintain integrity. Everything we and the Minister do must take cognisance of that. We must not do anything here that impinges on that. At the same time, there is always a need to ensure that our systems are as streamlined and fit for purpose as possible. It never does any harm, therefore, to re-examine these things. The pre-legislative process is about sitting down and dealing with key stakeholders, as we have over the last number of weeks and months, to hear any concerns there are on potential pitfalls. We will then compile a report to feed that back to ensure the Minister and officials have examined every possibility and that we have proper scrutiny of legislation to avoid unintended consequences in what is proposed.

I have a number of questions based on the presentation. In the opening presentation, Mr. Denis Egan made reference to comparisons between the HSE and HIQA and Bord Bia and the Food Safety Authority. In relation to the racing industry internationally, what other examples are there? What do our counterparts in other countries do? Are they more amalgamated or separate? What is the experience abroad from how things have been run?

Across the industry, there has been much frustration at the amount of time the streamlining process has taken. The Turf Club voiced its frustration that what are, in the general scheme, relatively small savings have not come into place yet and could have happened without legislation. Why has that not happened before now?

The club also referred to the risk of the loss of volunteerism. Similar to integrity, if one loses volunteers, it is hard to get them back. Leaving aside the role of Turf Club volunteer members in providing integrity functions, what are the general costs associated with such functions?

What impact on integrity could Horse Racing Ireland getting control over entries into, choosing silks for, and so forth for races have? Is it not the case Horse Racing Ireland already has a considerable role in that? Perhaps the Turf Club would point out where the difficulty or conflict arises in that.

The Turf Club referred to heads 5 and 11 which it claims would remove financial independence from the regulatory body, and went on to say it was fundamentally opposed to the proposal regarding point-to-points. Keeping those separate for the moment, on the issue of arbitration, the Turf Club stated in its submission: "The existing arbitration clause provides for the appointment of an arbitrator in the event that the parties cannot agree on an integrity services budget in any particular year." It wants this extended, and I note that. How long has this arbitration process been in place? Has it been used heretofore? I presume its decisions are binding.

Point-to-point racing is a successful element of the industry that works extremely well. If one makes a comparison with the GAA, there is the big day out in Croke Park and there is the small day on the side of the GAA club. It is gravelly, down to earth, and absolutely grassroots. To me, that is what point-to-point is. It is the vital grassroots element that plays such a key role in providing a nursery for the industry before progression to the full racecourse. Also from the breeding aspect, the price of a decent point-to-pointer in the sales can be very significant. For those who are breeding horses and even for the farmer who has a few mares, it is a key area. We want to ensure there is no risk to this side of the industry in this legislation.

Mr. Hickey's presentation states that to participate in a point-to-point race, all owners, trainers and horses must register with the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee, INHSC. It also mentions hunter certificates and handler licences, specifically the online application process. There are two different applications, one for a licence and another for a certificate. Are these being amalgamated or will they be retained? Will the Turf Club outline the changes to these arrangements?

The presentation also mentions that the State never had any involvement in point-to-point racing and it is not mentioned in any of the racing Acts. Is it not fair to say that this legislation would confirm in statute for the first time that point-to-point racing is a function of the INHSC? Does it not lock that in and would it not answer some of the Turf Club's concerns? What would it see would be needed to address the concerns it has highlighted?

The Turf Club contends the proposals in head 5 and head 11 of the current draft general scheme "amount to an unconstitutional attack on the property rights of the INHSC". That is a serious statement. We as a committee and the Minister cannot have a situation where legislation would go forward that would be unconstitutional.

A situation can arise where a piece of legislation that would be unconstitutional could go forward so this committee must ask the Attorney General to look at this again. If this is the case, it is a serious situation. Those are my questions and points for now.