Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will finish the point and Mr. Keeling can then come in. That has not been changed in the legislation in 2016. We have a system of governance which is in accordance with the obligations laid down under the codes of practice. The obligations of the board of Horse Racing Ireland are governed by two documents, the codes of the practice of 2006 and 2016. I note that Mr. Keeling said the guidelines allowed an exception to be made where a person brought "scarce expertise or special qualifications to a role" and that that applied in this case. I cannot find that reference in either of the two codes of practice. It simply does not hold sway. If Mr. Kavanagh were to get sick or die, would the racing industry be on its knees? How is he going to juggle being a CEO in the organisation and all of his other international duties which the delegates have outlined?

There is a reason the guidelines are in place and State bodies are governed in this way. Nobody should be in that position. The only organisations in which it happens are in dictatorships such as North Korea. I think the only other one is the Olympic Council of Ireland and do not think HRI wants to move in that direction. It does not add up. Mr. Keeling has admitted that he specifically went off to achieve an outcome that was against the guidelines. There was no back-up plan; the plan was Mr. Kavanagh.

I would like Mr. Keeling to elaborate. Does he accept that, under the code of practice, making appointments, remuneration and succession planning are matters reserved for the board?

The use of the word "reserved" in the code is significant. That is the board's job. The fact that a remuneration committee went off and did that behind the back of the board is a real problem. The minutes would seem to back this up. It is a real corporate governance problem. I would like to know why in a letter to the Department, information was given that the board was to be informed about what was going on behind the scenes to reappoint Brian Kavanagh. We were told in April that the board would be told. Subsequent to that, however, the remuneration committee, which is subservient to the board, decided to exclude the board from that information. That is a huge problem of corporate governance. I would like to know who decided to bypass the board in that way. Why did they decide to do that? What could possibly be the rationale for that?

I notice in the opening statements that Mr. Keeling places a lot of stock in the press commentary that Horse Racing Ireland has put out. It goes back to the historic dealings in September 2011. As the witness said in his opening statement, "This task passed to me when I took over from Mr. Brosnan". I would like to know who passed it to him. Where was this documented and what was the involvement of the board in that situation? What was the change? A lot of what is coming out from the witness and in the press commentary is that this was an historical thing and that everybody was on board with Brian Kavanagh being reappointed. I would like the witness to address the change in personnel on the board. Did he talk to the board at that time? Was the issue of Brian Kavanagh's reappointment discussed at the board in 2014, 2015 or 2016? We know Mr. Keeling was going to a lot of effort behind the scenes to try to clarify that position with the various Departments in order that he could take up that position. I would like an accurate appraisal of how much the board was kept on board on the basis that its members are the people under statute and under law who are charged with overseeing the remuneration in that regard.

I would like to tap into the question from Deputy Penrose. The idea of a full inquiry into the whole area of corporate governance of Horse Racing Ireland over the last five years would be very good and beneficial. I do not know what Mr. Keeling's attitude would be to that. I need him to answer the point as to why Horse Racing Ireland thought it could break the legal restrictions put there for very good reason as to why people are not appointed. Does the witness now accept that the salary is well in excess of the guidelines that are there now? Is that the clarification? I presume he accepts that now.

In her opening remarks, Dr. Osborne made the point that the importance of corporate governance is recognised within Horse Racing Ireland. I put it to her that maybe that is contradicted by what she said later in her statement that Horse Racing Ireland has only now put in place procedures around these matters. Is that not an admission that it did not have it before and in essence failed in its responsibilities in that regard?