Mr. Neville O'Byrne:

On the next point Deputy Pringle raised about the consultation requirement, our difficulty with this is not that we do not want to consult with people because, in fact, on a non-statutory basis, we consult widely with the industry, in particular when we want to change rules. We have no major difficulty with that but what we have is a technical difficulty that being asked to consult, or being required to consult, under an Act, both in relation to the making of our rules and to the fixing of our licence income, would impose obligations on us which would not allow us to act effectively with a free hand with which a regulator should act.

Again, this is a point which can be easily cured. As I said, we have no objection to being open and transparent and to consulting when we have time to do it, but there are occasions when things arise very urgently, or there are things which we would need to do very quickly, and we simply would not have the time. We are simply asking that we not be required to do this on a statutory basis because we actually have done so when we have had time and when we have believed it has been necessary. The previous requirement was that we inform HRI, which we did. This is a change and clearly it is not being made without some purpose. That is the concern I have.

The other point Deputy Pringle raised, on which we have touched but which I think it is worth returning to briefly, is about the money going around in a ring. Essentially, we get income from licensing participants in the sport. That money is used essentially to pay our staff who have to do the work to carry out this function, which is an integrity function. It relates to jockeys, trainers, drug testing and all this sort of thing. Essentially, we contribute to the cost of integrity because our staff are paid from our income to do this work. We cannot quite see how it can be reasonable that we should be asked to give all this money to a third party, HRI. We get it back but then it is taken into account in the integrity budget. That is an area in the Bill which is not fair to us, which leaves us in a situation where we could be financially without any support and which affects our integrity. It is well known to everybody in this room that if a person is beholden to another for money, other than on a very strict statutory basis, he or she has some power over that person. Under the current legislation, HRI has an obligation to fund the integrity budget and the rule is that if we cannot agree the budget, there is arbitration, which is fine, but this is a step further because unless this is clarified, essentially it has the potential to leave us with no money. I think those were all the questions Deputy Pringle had.