Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Why was that not concluded as part of the contract? It is a difficult one for Mr. Keeling, in fairness, because he was not there. However, five of the members of the board at that time remain in position and should be able to deal with it. It is an important issue.

In 2011, the board failed in its duty to finalise matters and did not carry out its functions satisfactorily. Does Mr. Keeling agree with that? The effect was that he was left carrying the baby, which is the kernel of the problem. Is that not the reason Mr. Keeling wrote to the Minister in December 2014? He has told us there was no business plan but merely a series of letters put forward. To clarify, this is not about the individual in question. Mr. Kavanagh is clearly a highly competent, well qualified person, apart altogether from his horse racing expertise. However, it is somewhat unusual to make the case that because somebody is good at his or her job, that it is the end of the matter. It is far fetched to claim that the development of the Curragh would fall asunder if that person was not in position. There were a lot of other people who put their shoulder to the wheel to advance the Curragh redevelopment and all the other work that is going on.

We should not forget that €60 million of hard-earned taxpayers' money was given to Horse Racing Ireland. I was my party's spokesperson at the time and supported that allocation, notwithstanding that those were very lean times for most ordinary people, not many of whom would have had horses competing at the millions races. I was somewhat bemused to read a reference in the Irish Independenttoday to a member of the board of HRI congratulating Mr. Keeling and Mr. Kavanagh on playing their parts in securing funding for the organisation. This was great news, according to the board member, which put everything else into context. The message was that it was all about getting the loot and the corporate governance thing was only a side issue. It is not very encouraging for anybody to read that, especially people, for example, who are struggling to get a child into special needs provision. I was very irked when I read it.

The delegates have devised a succession plan that is effectively an insider's charter. It seems clear their intention is not to allow any outsider to compete for the position of CEO. This insider's charter means there never will be fresh blood at the top of the HRI. That is what the corporate guidance amounts to. HRI executives are being guided to compete for the position and, lo and behold, one of their names will come out of the drum. Why was there not an open competition? Mr. Kavanagh did attend for interview in 2009, but how many others were interviewed? We had a notorious row over anti-competitive practices at this committee a few weeks ago. What we are hearing today puts that in the shade.

As a barrister, I cannot understand why legal opinions were sought if no issue had arisen. The last thing one does is chase barristers or solicitors looking for legal opinions if there is no issue. It seems there was sufficient concern for somebody on the committee or board to be wise enough to seek an opinion in that regard.

When Mr. Keeling first communicated with the CEO, he was seeking a three-year extension of Mr. Kavanagh's term. Why was that changed to five years? On 2 May 2016, Mr. Keeling wrote to the Department indicating the CEO's salary would be lower than that paid to the CEO of the Turf Club. Does Mr. Keeling maintain that is the factual position? I contend it is not. There are very few CEOs who have exceeded the guidelines laid down by Government. I was there when those guidelines were drawn up and when there were cuts to the pay of every public sector CEO, withdrawal of cars and bonuses and so on.

I am very grateful to the delegates for coming here today voluntarily and if I am wrong on the next point I wish to make, I will be glad to be corrected. As I understand it, the board of HRI was not unanimous in its view on the reappointment of Mr. Kavanagh.

Mr. Keeling went to the Department with a letter listing all the positive things the outgoing CEO had done, including his international appointments and expertise and how important they were on the international stage - I do not doubt that for a minute. Then when he got the okay from the Minister, he brought back the consent. The Minister was going to hand out €64 million. No board could turn this down and say, "Well, Penrose has the approval of the Minister and with that is the €60 million. We would be shown to be very ungrateful souls". Mr. Powell has submitted a simple note, which I appreciate. I assume it was his board meeting in July that he was referring to.