Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Sport Ireland and Mr. Aidan Horan here today. Reading this report initially when it was first published, my first fear was that it would have a knock-on impact on other associations in regard to getting their house in order. Mr. Treacy has already acknowledged that there will be repercussions. I welcome the report and I am delighted that the response from everyone was positive. However, we have returned to a personality clash issue. I wish to put on the record that on 9 July the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, on foot of a parliamentary question from my colleague, Deputy MacSharry, stated:

I welcome the recent publication of the Report of the Governance Review Group... The Review Group has presented a detailed set of proposals covering a wide range of issues including the association's Board, commercial partnerships as well as audit and risk management.

Had the Minister, Deputy Ross, not read the report by 9 July? It has been referred to umpteen times at this committee, but everybody seems to be passing over this point. I refer to page 74 of Mr. Horan's report.

Its deliberations should be included the record:

In acknowledging the exceptional circumstances that exist, and the many calls for a complete change at the top, the Group considers that, for handover and transition purposes and to manage the serious risks where everyone leaves at once, at least one or possibly a maximum of two members might consider putting themselves forward for positions on the interim Board. This will require the current Board, as a collective, to consider their individual and personal interests but more importantly at this stage consider the interests of the Association and decide what they, as a collective, consider is the best course of action.

I was led to believe that this was all to cover the board on an interim basis for 12 months to 2020. I assume that everyone found that acceptable. In fairness, Mr. Horan acknowledges at the top of the page that the board offered its resignation in full, but the proviso was put into the report that it should reconsider one or two of the members. Do my committee colleagues have the other names that should have been put forward? Two names have been put forward for the position of vice president, one uncontested and the second contested. Is this not going well? In fairness, it is only for an interim board for 12 months. A lot is hanging on this decision and this deliberation because it will create more uncertainty.

My big concern as a member of the public, and in the context of accountability for taxpayers' money, is that the spin is that it is down to the clubs, which were not getting it, although we were led to believe they were. I refer to the development clubs, the sports partnerships and so on. Is this just a last-minute intervention on the part of the Minister, Deputy Ross? This report outlines matters clearly. Had they some other name in mind? I cited at a previous committee meeting the case of a company in my own back yard, namely Dairygold, where changes were made. However, one does not just make a clean sweep of management; one keeps some of the old guard and then moves forward. Many Governments have resigned but then sought re-election, have they not?