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

The administration of entries to and fees for point-to-point meetings will continue to be handled locally by the hunt club. Will Mr. Gleeson clarify how much prize money will be made available for meetings? On the suggestion that the funds available to the Turf Club would be taken into account, does that include funding streams from commercial interests and areas outside of integrity services? Does it take into account historic moneys or savings on the part of the Turf Club or the hunt committee?

The racecourses suggested that it would be useful to have a proxy representative on the board. Does Mr. Gleeson envisage difficulties with such a suggestion and does the Department have an open mind on it? If their representative was unable, due to other business, to attend a board meeting, the racecourses would not be represented at the meeting. I ask for clarification on the industry services committee. Board representation was one of the main issues raised by every group we met. We have a challenge in dealing with that issue. If everyone is represented, the board could become quite large, but if we decide to choose some organisations but not others, each of them could make a valid argument as to why it should have full representation. The Turf Club referred to the UK Horsemen's Group, which is an umbrella body. Could the industry services committee play an equivalent role?

Head 4(1) inserts a Schedule which refers at 7.(1)(f) to stable employees. Head 6(2) inserts an amended section 20 in the 1994 Act which in subsection (3)(c) deals with people directly employed in the industry but stable employees are not explicitly named. The jockeys made a compelling case that they should not be lumped in with people who are directly employed, such as stable staff, because they would not necessarily face the same issues. I am conscious that thousands of people are employed as stable staff and want to ensure they are explicitly represented. The anomaly between the two heads might be investigated.

In regard to head 5, the Turf Club took the view that it went beyond the Indecon and Smith & Williamson reports. It also pointed out that stall handlers and photo finish staff are under HRI and suggested this meant it would be able to bring in those staff if questions arose around rules of racing. Is that the case and, if so, can Mr. Gleeson suggest a way around it? The Turf Club indicated that it was keen for this area to come under its responsibility.

The Turf Club also proposed that the racing regulatory body be funded directly by the Department on a multi-annual basis, or at least retain a minimum of financial independence. The first part of that recommendation would go against the principles set out in the heads. Does Mr. Gleeson see any possibility of implementing such a funding structure and what argument would he make against funding the body directly through a separate stream?

I ask for clarification on the media rights committee. Can the committee bring in people from the outside who are not board members and was that the case in the past?

A number of concerns were expressed about how the HRI might issue directives. The racing regulatory body asked why they are called directives rather than terms of trade or something similar. It argued that the meaning and legal status of a directive is unclear and that there cannot be two rule-making bodies for the sport. Can further clarity be provided in the regulation in regard to directives?