Mr. Chris Byrne:

I thank the Cathaoirleach. In listening to some of the comments and in reply to Deputy Flaherty about where we are with the threats, we have to realise that HSI is not fit for purpose. With the changes Mr. Corrigan alluded to, it is effectively a private company with no accountability to the industry or to the funders of the industry. The recent changes in its constitution have focused on HSI's needs, not the industry's requirements. One would have to say that HSI has altered the constitution to neutralise the high-performance part of our industry and the representation at a board level and other levels. It has, in a sense, just played along the system and given succour to the requirement to engage. There has been no engagement with the industry. Self-preservation seems to dominate its thinking when it declares that it is the legitimate authority and sole arbiter over our industry. That is contained in its new constitution. It makes a mockery of everybody else in the private sector that another private company can come along and claim jurisdiction over it. They have isolated and insulated themselves from the industry and the high-performance sector. It is a significant cause for concern. They do not possess the expertise. Most of us have been in the industry for a lifetime or for generations and we would not claim to have the expertise. However, we have career administrators who are now dictating to the industry what direction it should take and how it should go. They are very serious threats to the industry at this stage because all the Government funding, be it from the Department of agriculture or the Department of sport, is being channelled through HSI. It is a big risk for everybody else in the industry when the administration of that has been done in this fashion.