Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. In Mr. Keeling's opening statement, he refers to his own business and I congratulate him on many years of job creation and so on. However, he is not running his own business in Horse Racing Ireland. I appreciate that in his business life, he would have sought to hire the best people, keep them on and achieve the best outcome. This is a very different matter. A very significant amount of public money is involved. As he is aware, there has been a huge focus in recent years on salaries and appointments and that things are run properly. The presentation today is not plausible, frankly, in terms of people of Mr. Keeling's experience not understanding fully the implications of what they were doing. There is a need to elaborate further.

As for the existing members of the board, Mr. Keeling said that they are appointed properly and that everything is in order. I seek more information on how long the board members have been in situand how many terms they have served. I seek clarification on all of the board members. The witnesses are bound to have that information and if possible, they could supply it to the committee after today's meeting.

The next question is in respect of Mr. Brian Kavanagh. Why is he apparently being paid €50,000 above what is set down in the code of practice? My understanding is his total salary is more than that of the Taoiseach. Did Mr. Keeling also propose a bonus for Mr. Kavanagh, on top of that salary of €191,000, which also broke guidelines?

Can I get an answer on that?

I understand HRI is a large shareholder in Dundalk Racecourse. Right now, there are legal matters that could expose HRI to financial outlay. One of the concerns people always have is that the State sometimes utilises taxpayers' money in a way that they would not due to the risk. They would not engage in a legal dispute. Can I have some clarification around that? Is HRI satisfied that it has independent advice that it is right to proceed? Maybe it is but is there proper due diligence and does it have appropriate advice around cases that are taken and in respect of which public moneys are exposed?

Deputy Penrose has referred to the value-for-money review. How many of the recommendations of the Indecon report, which is four years old, have been implemented by the board?