Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 1 July 2014

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

General Scheme of Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2014: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

2:00 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I welcome Mr. Brendan Gleeson, assistant secretary, Mr. Dermot Ryan, deputy chief inspector, Mr. Gerry Greally, senior inspector, and Ms Emer McGeogh, assistant principal officer. I thank them for coming before the committee to brief it on the general scheme of the Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2014 and to outline the rationale for the provisions contained therein. The committee was asked by the Minister to consider the heads of the Bill.
By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Mr. Gleeson will make and opening statement and we will discuss each head. Some will generate more interest than others. I invite Mr. Gleeson to make his opening statement.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The draft general scheme of the Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2014 has been approved by Government. In accordance with procedure, the draft general scheme has been published on the Department’s website and forwarded to this committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. Following the conclusion of this phase of the legislative procedure, the general scheme will be sent to the Office of the Attorney General for the drafting of a Bill. Consideration of the final drafting will be informed by the deliberations of this committee during the pre-legislative phase.

The Irish horseracing industry makes a significant contribution to employment and the Irish economy generally. It is estimated to underpin 14,000 jobs, €1.1 billion in economic output and exports to the value of €205 million to 37 countries worldwide in 2013. Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, is a commercial State body established under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001. HRI is charged with the overall administration, promotion and development of the industry. The 2001 Act sets down the mechanism under which State support is provided to HRI. HRI provides funding for integrity services to the Racing Regulatory Body, RRB. The Turf Club, including the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee, a private body, is designated as the RRB and is charged with carrying out these functions under the current legislation. HRI has provided between €5.5 million and €7 million per annum to the Turf Club in respect of integrity services over the past five years.

In 2012 the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine commissioned Indecon International Consultants to carry out an independent review of certain aspects of the horse racing industry. The Department facilitated a stakeholder consultation process as part of the review. Written submissions were sought from interested parties and forwarded to Indecon for their consideration. The resultant report examined the legislation, governance structures, funding and management of the industry, including the streamlining of functions assigned by legislation to HRI and the RRB, and made a number of recommendations in this regard.

The report contained recommendations aimed at providing a more viable and sustainable horse racing sector. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, announced his acceptance of the Indecon recommendations and his intention to introduce amending legislation to facilitate the introduction of the changes recommended by Indecon. Arising from the Indecon report, HRI and the RRB established a streamlining task force with a view to achieving efficiencies and to achieve a minimum of 10% reduction in costs, as identified in the report. Consultants Smith & Williamson were appointed by the task force to act as facilitator in these discussions. Smith & Williamson prepared a report that contained 18 recommendations, which it estimated would give rise to €1.8 million per annum in savings.

In preparing the draft general scheme of the Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2014, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine engaged in discussions with HRI and the RRB about the recommendations in the Indecon and Smith & Williamson reports over a considerable period of time. The draft general scheme of the Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2014 was circulated to a number of Departments and to the Attorney General’s office for observations. A number of observations were received and these were accommodated in so far as possible in the draft general scheme forwarded to this committee for legislative scrutiny. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine obtained Cabinet approval on 3 June for the draft general scheme and to proceed to the pre-legislative scrutiny phase. The draft general scheme of the Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2014 builds on recommendations of the Indecon report and is intended to strengthen governance and transparency within the administration of horse racing, to clarify the respective roles of HRI and the RRB, to improve accountability and control over State funding and to streamline the administrative functions of the two bodies.

In regard to governance, it is proposed to reduce the size and alter the structure of the HRI board in order to improve efficiency and accountability and increase ministerial representation on the board, in accordance with the Indecon recommendations. The functions of the RRB will be maintained and strengthened and, in particular, the draft general scheme includes an enabling provision permitting the Minister to authorise RRB personnel to carry out functions under the Animal Remedies Act 1993.

The general scheme provides for a single streamlined administrative structure within HRI for registration, financial and other functions of HRI and the RRB without compromising the integrity functions of the RRB or their property rights to income derived from the registration of hunters’ certificates for point to point racing and the licensing of participants in racing. In this context, I should make it clear that there will be no change in so far as the organisation of point to points is concerned. The organisation of meetings, the issuing of hunter certificates, the acceptance of horse racing entries and declarations will continue to be managed by hunt clubs. However, the registration functions, that is, the registration of hunter certificates and trainers, will reside along with other registration horse racing functions in HRI.

The scheme provides for enhanced control and accountability with explicit provisions empowering the Minister to issue directives to HRI, requiring HRI to comply with codes of practice and permitting the Minister to withhold funding instalments from HRI and Bord na gCon if he is dissatisfied with their strategic or other plans. It provides for the accounts of the RRB to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and published, and for the CEO of the RRB to attend at Oireachtas committees as required. Key provisions include changes to the HRI board’s size and structure to improve efficiency and accountability. The board currently comprises 14 members - a chairman and 13 ordinary members. The Minister nominates only the chairman and one other member of the board, the latter to represent the interests of horse racing in Northern Ireland. All other members of the board are nominated by representative organisations. The Indecon report suggested that this has resulted in low levels of Government or ministerial control over the process of decision making by the HRI board. It is proposed that the number of ordinary board members is reduced from 13 to 12, with an increase in the number of ministerial appointees from one to three. The representation from the RRB on the board of HRI is reduced from five to three, a proposal with which the RRB has no difficulty.

HRI currently has 26 board committees, which are important in supporting the main work of the board. The Indecon report suggested that none of the existing committees focussed adequately on the particular needs of the betting sector or on employee requirements. Against this background, the general scheme provides for the creation of two new statutory committees to represent those employed in the sector and the betting industry in addition to the two existing committees that deal with the issues of media rights and race fixtures. The scheme also provides for a standard five person membership of all four statutory sub-committees proposed under this legislation. They are the race fixtures committee, the industries services committee, the betting committee and the media rights committee. The scheme also provides for HRI to appoint the chair of the race fixtures committee.

Under the current legislation, the latter committee is chaired by a racing regulatory body director of Horse Racing Ireland.
The draft scheme also proposes the retention by the RRB of responsibility for integrity functions and for the licensing of racecourses, jockeys, valets and other participants in racing. At local level the issuing of hunter certificates, management of horse racing entries and declarations for point-to-point races will remain with the local hunt clubs. Amendments to the rules of racing will be subject to consultation with HRI in the context of budgetary arrangements. HRI will not have any imprimaturover the rules of racing but it is considered appropriate, for the sake of good order, to have some level of consultation where rules which could have an impact on budgetary requirements are to be changed. The Bill also includes an enabling provision permitting the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to appoint persons or classes of persons to carry out all or any of the functions of authorised officers under the Animal Remedies Act 1993, subject to such conditions as the Minister deems appropriate. This provision was included at the request of the racing regulatory body.
The general scheme also provides for greater clarity on the functions of HRI, including the power to issue directives setting rules and procedures relating to its functions. There is a lack of clarity in the current legislation regarding responsibility for the administration and financial management of the Irish horse racing industry. The scheme provides for a single streamlined administrative structure within HRI for registration, licensing, financial and other functions of HRI and the RRB without compromising the integrity functions of the RRB. This will require data sharing between HRI and RRB. This streamlining measure includes the processing, but not ownership, of income from the licensing functions and registration fees for hunter certificates and trainers from point-to-points which are currently administered by the racing regulatory body. This will eliminate any need for duplication between HRI and the RRB, particularly in regard to certain administration aspects such as the registration of hunter certificates and the registration of point-to-point trainers or handlers. It will also pave the way for increased efficiency in the administration of areas such as finance, information technology, payroll and pensions. In the case of point-to-point meetings, however, fees for issuing hunter certificates, fixtures and entries will remain with the local hunt clubs, as will responsibility for arranging such meetings.
The scheme provides for improved ministerial control with explicit provisions empowering the Minister to issue directions to HRI and requiring HRI to furnish information on the scope of its activities, including compliance with codes of practice or other Government policy documents, to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when requested. There is no explicit obligation in current legislation requiring HRI to comply with the requirements of the code of practice or for the RRB to report to HRI and this deficiency is being addressed.
There are insufficient provisions in the current legislation, in respect of the procedure for making payments to HRI and to Bord na gCon, to allow the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to withhold financial support if he is dissatisfied with the strategic and other plans submitted to support any funding proposals or their implementation. It is proposed to provide explicit permission for the Minister to withhold funding instalments from HRI or Bord na gCon if he is dissatisfied with the strategic and other plans submitted. Funding may also be withheld where HRI or Bord na gCon have failed to provide information requested by the Minister or where they have failed to comply with a direction of the Minister. Similarly, the racing regulatory body shall be required to furnish information to HRI on its activities when requested to do so. This information may be taken into account by HRI in determining the annual budgetary requirements of the RRB.
The accounts of the RRB will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and published. The chief executive of the RRB will be obliged to attend Oireachtas committees as required. There is also a provision permitting the Minister to require HRI and the RRB to agree procedures to ensure compliance with Government codes of practice, guidelines or policy documents as well as in respect of the provision of financial and other information on any matter funded by HRI. The scheme empowers HRI to make various deductions from prize money in accordance with HRI directives. This is essentially a reflection of current practice. However, HRI cannot make changes in the directives governing deductions for charitable funds administered by the RRB without the prior agreement of the racing regulatory body. This is because under current practice the RRB funds four charities from these deductions and it is only reasonable that it should agree to any change to those arrangements.
My colleagues and I would be happy to discuss the heads in the general scheme in detail and answer any questions the members of the committee may have. Alternatively, we would be happy to go through the general scheme, head by head, as suggested.

2:10 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Mr. Gleeson. If members agree, I propose that we go through the heads in that way. We could start discussing Mr. Gleeson's opening statement in general but the relevance of particulars will come up under the appropriate head. Let us take head one first. I am unsure which official wishes to start but perhaps someone could explain the changes and then I will ask if there are any questions.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Head one is the interpretation section. There is really only one new element. To assist the committee, we sent in a copy of the general scheme this morning with certain elements highlighted in yellow.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The marked sections highlight the changes.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes, this is to illustrate the changes. There is a definition of "data" and "data subject". This is because one of the streamlining proposals relates to the amalgamation of databases maintained in The Turf Club, the racing regulatory body and HRI. There is a provision later in the general scheme, which I will come to, which provides for an adjustment to the data protection provisions to allow for this amalgamation of databases. It is probably best discussed in detail when we come to the later head. Anyway, the purpose of the definition is simply to link in to the later head. It is probably best discussed we come to the detailed provisions.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The members are happy with that.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Again, head two provides for definitions. The draft scheme provides for the establishment of a betting committee and an industry services committee. The first two provisions on the page, provision 2(a) and provision 2(b), simply include definitions to allow for the appointment of members from particular constituencies to those committees. Part of provision 2(c) is highlighted. This part indicates that the racing regulatory body also covers point-to-point steeplechases. This is simply a clarification and, in fact, reflects the current position, although the current legislation is silent on the matter.

The racing regulatory body has the power to establish limited companies. These are comprised within the definition of the racing regulatory body if they are established. Again, it is simply a point of clarification rather than a substantive issue and it reflects the current practice.

Section 2(d) contains reference to the rules of racing and clarification that the rules of racing apply to point-to-point steeplechases as well. Again, that is a point of clarification since the current legislation is silent on the matter. Anyway, it is a reflection of the current reality.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Gleeson for the presentation. Will Mr. Gleeson outline what was in place before the betting committee and the integrated services committee? Will this bring about a substantial change in the way the HRI board engages with the betting industry? I know there was on-course representation on the board already. Will Mr. Gleeson outline how the betting committee might bring about a change to that integration?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

We will come to provisions shortly which will outline how the committee will be appointed and how membership is managed. However, these two positions were specific recommendations from Indecon, which took the view that these sectors were under-represented as things stand. We will come to a head which deals with the detail of how the chair will be appointed and how the committees will function. Perhaps we might discuss the detail at that stage.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am unfamiliar with the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act. Does this have any bearing on online betting or does it relate only to on the racecourse in any shape or form? Forgive me, I am not an expert on backing horses, surprisingly enough.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It does. In fact, we will deal with that when we discuss in detail the membership of the committee.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is in head No. 3?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Essentially this is about fines. It is a modernisation of the provisions in the old legislation, something our legal advisers asked for.

It is to ensure consistency with the Fines Act 2010. There is now a concept called a Class A fine which involves a fine of up to €5,000 on summary conviction. It is simply a modernisation of existing provisions to comply with this new legislation.

2:20 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The explanatory note states that. We will proceed to head 4.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Head 4 deals in the first instance with the HRI board. Again, what is contained here is a reflection of the recommendations in the Indecon report. In section 4(2), the number of ordinary members of the board is reduced from 13 to 12. That is a reflection of a view expressed by Indecon that the board was probably too big. Indeed, it cited OECD and other studies which suggested that smaller boards function more effectively. It is not much of a reduction, but there is also an increase in the representation of the Minister from one to three. That requires, in turn, a reduction in the number of nominees of the racing regulatory body from five to three. In another provision here, the reference to the Minister for Finance is changed in section 4(6)(1) to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. There is an explicit requirement in section 4(6)(2) that the HRI shall have regard to Government policy, the code of practice for the governance of State agencies and other public pay policy in determining the remuneration of the chairman and the board members.

It is arguable that these provisions were already applicable, but there was no explicit requirement in the legislation. We simply wished to make it crystal clear that the chairman and board members are bound by current Government policy.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Subsection (7)(a) deals with the new members. Three shall be nominees-----

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Under (7)(1)(a), three shall be nominees of the racing regulatory body. That number was previously five. The racing regulatory body was the body with the largest number of members on the board and we had to make space for ministerial appointees, while reducing the size of the board overall.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who appoints the racing regulatory body members? Is it the body?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes; they are nominated by it.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who makes up that body?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back to the Senator. I call Senator O'Keeffe.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It remains the case that people will be nominated or chosen as opposed to competing openly to be members. Is that correct?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The provision here is for the nomination of members, who will then be appointed by HRI. However, there is nothing here to prevent them from going through the application procedure. This is a representative board, so it is appropriate that there be a wide perspective on the industry and that there be representative members. That constrains the possibility of opening up the board membership.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the three chosen by the Minister for their specific skills and competencies, they could be anybody in theory. They could be me, if I had the competency.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes; they could be anybody.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That does not preclude it. However, the phrase "shall be chosen" would appear to direct that they would be chosen. I thought, in the spirit-----

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I understand what the Senator is saying, but the term "shall be chosen" does not preclude the possibility of some type of open process, in my view. The choice can be made from the applicants through an open process. This wording is not unusual and I do not think it precludes the possibility of the more open process the Senator has in mind.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the language be more open and say that? Is that possible?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you look at (a) to (h), they all state "shall be nominated", with the exception of the last one, which is the ministerial provision. It could quite easily be phrased "shall be nominated by the Minister", which would have been the same. What the Senator has in mind is how people are aware of the fact that three places exist.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is quite a small industry, so everybody knows it.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For example, the Minister might choose somebody from outside the jurisdiction because he thought that would be a good thing. This provision would suggest that it is at the Minister's discretion. I understood that we were moving to a situation in which positions such as this were to be advertised and people would apply. I understood we were striving for that in the new politics. This appears to be closing that down.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is probably in the regulations, Mr. Gleeson.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

No. I am advised that these positions are advertised on the State bodies' vacancies pages. In fact, that is the process. The wording here does not preclude that process, as it is the process in any event. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the word "chosen" is unfortunate. It suggests what is not in fact that case. The fact is that there is an open process, and it should reflect that.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At least one of them shall be representative of the horse racing industry in Northern Ireland. That was the case and still is the case.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have a problem with that.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under (f), one shall be nominated by jockeys, stable staff and persons employed in the racing industry. Does that mean there will be one representative from the jockeys or the stable staff?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is of those three constituencies, yes.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One represents the three. At present, stable staff have one and jockeys have one.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To move on to page 9-----

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked a question on who makes up or is on the racing regulatory body. It will nominate three of these. Previously it was five. Who makes up that body? Does it take in jockeys and everybody?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

This is an extremely unusual regulatory situation and we are not starting with a blank page. We have the Turf Club, which is a private body, and the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee, which is also a private body. Collectively, they are given statutory functions in legislation. In the context of exercising those statutory functions they are called the racing regulatory body. There is a long and proud history of fairly rigorous policing of horse racing by this body. We do not wish to dissolve the current arrangements in any way in this legislation. We want to recognise the very valuable role that each party plays in the regulation of the industry. In that context it is very important to have a separate integrity function that is quite separate from the Horse Racing Ireland function. The Turf Club and the committee are the members of the racing regulatory body.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Their committees will nominate their representatives.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

That is correct.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be two and one, so who decides who will get the two and the one? Previously there were five, and now there are three. Does the Turf Club get two?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

They will decide through their own processes.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is as far as we can go. The legislation provides that they nominate three.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The three of them could be from the Turf Club if that is the case.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

They will decide through their own processes.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a change of Minister to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. That is just clarification.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

That is correct.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The final piece is about the commencement of the section.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Page 9, dealing with section 25(2), is simply consequential on the changes we have just made. It states that two members of HRI representing the racing regulatory body will cease to be members and the Minister shall be informed of the names of such members by the racing regulatory body. This is precisely what the Senator was referring to. They will decide themselves which seats will be lost. They have a fixed time period in which to do that, but if they do not do it, the Minister can make a determination. That is a reasonably prudent provision.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is everybody happy with head 4?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

That entire section is simply consequential on the other amendments.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move to head 5.

2:30 pm

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

On head 5, one of the reasons for this legislation is to try to clarify the respective roles of Horse Racing Ireland and the racing regulatory body. Indecon and Smith and Williamson both made recommendations on the streamlining of certain administrative functions. Two offices located within one mile of each other are performing similar functions and this gives rise to a cost for the industry and those who participate in it. The proposed new section 10(1)(a) to be inserted into the 1994 Act is simply an overarching statement of the functions of Horse Racing Ireland and quite straightforward.

The proposed new section 10(1)(b) is slightly more complex and makes provision for something new, namely, that the registration of both hunter certificates and participants in point to point steeplechases will be carried out by Horse Racing Ireland. These functions are currently carried out by the racing regulatory body. The reason we are proposing to transfer them to Horse Racing Ireland is it already carries out such registration functions in respect of horse racing. In short, it has the administrative structures in place to allow it to do this. It would be sensible to consolidate these registration functions in a single body. However, we are very conscious of the need to ensure local interest in point to point racing will not be diminished in any way and that what is proposed will not undermine the voluntary effort which makes point to point meetings possible. The issuing of hunter certificates, the acceptance of horse racing entries and declarations for point to point steeplechases have always been carried out by local hunt clubs. Under the provisions that have been drawn up, that will continue to be the case. There will be no change in the organisation of point to point racing. However, the registration functions will be carried out by Horse Racing Ireland.

The proposed new section 10(1)(b)(ii) refers to the processing of all charges and payments to participants in the horse racing industry, including charges relating to licensing, with the exception of the issuing of hunter certificates, the acceptance of horse racing entries and declarations for point to point steeplechases. We are creating a statutory basis to allow Horse Racing Ireland to carry out the processing of payments relating to the horse racing sector. This includes some functions currently performed by the racing regulatory body. We will deal with this matter later in our discussion on the general scheme but, essentially, it will involve payments being made to and processed by Horse Racing Ireland. Where such payments relate to functions carried out by the Turf Club, the money will have to be returned to the latter in order to protect its property rights. There is a potential issue in the context of prejudicing the property rights of the racing regulatory body, but we have explicitly provided - at a later point in the general scheme and on the advice of the Attorney General - for these funds to be given back to the Turf Club. This provision relates to administrative streamlining, simplicity and trying to reduce the cost burden on the industry and is sensible.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We stated we would discuss betting. I am not trying to jump the gun in that regard, I am merely wondering about the nature of the relationship between Horse Racing Ireland and the betting industry in this context.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that issue is dealt with under another head.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Effectively, all responsibilities - the managing of money, kit and equipment, racecourses, etc. - are set out under head 5. Is that not the case?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes. The betting sub-committee of the board is dealt with under a later head. The Senator's previous question was related to that head and I suggested we deal with the issue of betting under it.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reiterate that I am not trying to jump the gun. However, I wish to know whether head 5 also refers to whatever is the broad relationship between Horse Racing Ireland and the betting industry. Mr. Gleeson has stated Horse Racing Ireland has a betting sub-committee which is dealt with under a specific head. Given that head 5 paints a broad picture of the responsibilities of Horse Racing Ireland, I am wondering why it does not refer to the betting aspect.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I would construct it slightly differently. There is a representative board within Horse Racing Ireland on which a member of the betting sector sits. In addition, there is a specific representative sub-committee that deals with betting issues. Horse Racing Ireland does not run the betting industry, although it does-----

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not run the media either.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 5 covers amendments to the general functions of Horse Racing Ireland.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The only function of Horse Racing Ireland in respect of betting is only license operators at tracks. That is the extent of its functions in terms of the betting sector.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. In view of the fact that head 5 lists Horse Racing Ireland's general functions, I am curious to know why it does not state what Mr. Gleeson has just outlined. Should that not also be stated within the head? Perhaps I missed it.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I apologise to the Senator. It is stated in the proposed new section 10(1)(e). The phrase used is "to control the operations of on course authorised bookmakers". That is a provision which has always been contained in it.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise, Mr. Gleeson is right. However, the phrase "on course authorised bookmakers" does not cover all of what we are discussing.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

No, it does not.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am slightly puzzled as to why the proposed new section 10 does not refer to Horse Racing Ireland's regulation of or relationship with the betting industry, particularly in view of the fact that so many other matters are covered.

Photo of Mary Ann O'BrienMary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any reason only on course betting is covered?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The proposed Bill relates to Horse Racing Ireland. The Betting (Amendment) Bill is before the Dáil.

Photo of Mary Ann O'BrienMary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is interesting that much of the funding for the industry emanates from betting and that this-----

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two other items of legislation relating to this matter, namely, the Betting (Amendment) Bill, to which I have referred, and the gambling control Bill which is due to be published next year.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

We are discussing the functions of Horse Racing Ireland. It must be remembered that the organisation has regulatory functions in respect of premises it operates.

Photo of Mary Ann O'BrienMary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, it is not responsible for off course betting.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

No. Off course betting is governed by different legislation which comes within the remit of the Minister for Finance. There are two items of legislation, one of which is forthcoming, while the other is before the Dáil.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of them is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, while the other relates to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes, one of them is going through the Dáil.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, what is the function of the betting sub-committee of Horse Racing Ireland? The one line description provided uses the words "to regulate".

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

No, it is to ensure the various stakeholders in horse racing are represented in some way on the board. The betting industry is a stakeholder in the horse racing industry.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gleeson misunderstood my question. I was under the impression that he had stated there was a sub-committee.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

There is a sub-committee of the board.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it dealt with under head 6?

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is its function?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is referred to at the bottom of page 15.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is stated, "HRI shall establish a committee (“betting committee”) to focus on the requirements of the betting sector generally".

2:40 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It goes from 20A(1) to 20A(11)

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, I was just curious because it was not mentioned.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of-----

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The general functions are listed and I would have thought it was a general function.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a general function, but head 5 lists amendments to the general functions. The point is it is not being amended because it is already provided for.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the broad point of income-revenue, it will all come through HRI, but owing to property rights it will be given back to the racing regulatory body. Are there stipulations as to how it will be given back? The broader issue is that we wish to ensure there is no question mark over integrity processes and services and their independence. How exactly will the money be given back?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

In a way, there are two questions involved. First, if the funding derives from integrity activities carried out by the racing regulatory body, the funds will be handed back. Second, in the context of the legislation, as drafted, there is a guarantee that funding will be provided for horse racing and integrity functions. Within the overall context it seems entirely reasonable that when determining what funding is required for integrity services, as it is taxpayers' money that is involved, HRI be able to take into account all sources of funding for the racing regulatory body. In other words, if it receives funding through integrity functions, in determining how much taxpayers money should go in on top of it, it has to have regard to the funding received from these other sources. In practice, how I see the system operating is that the racing regulatory body will make a demand of Horse Racing Ireland. It will present a budget that will explain the various sources of funding and the demands on that funding and then request funding from HRI in order to carry out its functions.

There is also a provision in existing legislation - it is an unusual one, but it is in recognition of the importance of the integrity functions - which allows for an arbitrator to make a determination in the event of a dispute between the racing regulatory body and HRI. The board of HRI is representative. We have three members of the Turf Club and now have three ministerial nominees. The board is broadly representative and there are inherent checks and balances in its structure. There is a variety of protections for the integrity functions.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gleeson has answered my follow-on question about whether there is an appeals mechanism. When one changes legislation, one wishes to future proof it for the next 20 years when different people will be involved and we do not know what the position will be. There is an adjudication process in the event that those involved in integrity services investigate something HRI is doing, which might lead HRI to decide to cut off funding to it because it does not like what is happening. I accept what Mr. Gleeson said about the board being representative and that that is not likely to happen, but in the event that it is required, an adjudication process is available.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The adjudication process is already in place and not being removed. I am sure there are tensions from time to time in the operations of any good board when it comes to handing out money, but as far as I am aware, the mechanism has never been invoked.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 10(1)(g) of the 1994 Act, as inserted by the proposed head 5, refers to the operation of racecourses owned or leased by companies or subsidiaries under the control or auspices of HRI. We have five racecourses that are financially dependent on HRI, if not run by it. It was necessary for this to be the case. Is this something the Department considers could cause a conflict of interests and in the long run would it prefer if it were not the case?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I will go back to a cliché; we are not starting with a blank piece of paper. In a number of instances HRI took over racecourses because it was a necessity, as potentially they might have folded in the absence of public funding. What one tries to do is build in to the board and governance structures of the bodies concerned reasonable checks and balances. It is repetitious, but, essentially, the position is that we have a broadly representative board. We have three ministerial nominees, as well as Turf Club members on the board.

The establishment of companies provides a Chinese wall between the running of a race track and the other functions of HRI. The system is reasonably robust and unless the funding dynamic changes dramatically, I do not see it changing in the near future.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My final point relates to section 5(1)(2), that HRI should have all such powers which are necessary for or incidental to the performance of its functions under this Part and Part IV, including the power to issue directives setting rules and procedures to achieve its obligations under subsection (1)(a) and (b). Mr. Gleeson said the Minister would be empowered to issue directives to HRI. Will the Minister have power to issue directives in addition to HRI having such a power?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I apologise for the confusion. The word used should have been “direction”. They are two entirely different things. In this head HRI, essentially, is given the registration functions for the industry, with the exception of point to point racing. At the time in 2001 it had no guidance framework for the carrying out of these functions. In the intervening years it has provided for a series of directives which determine how it carries out the registration functions. Separately, we have a power which allows the Minister to give a direction to HRI on compliance with the code of governance for State bodies or other matters of Government policy. They are two separate issues. The Deputy’s confusion is understandable because the wrong word was used in my opening statement.

Photo of Mary Ann O'BrienMary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should the word be “directive”?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It should be “direction”.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move on to head 6 which relates to committees.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

We are dealing with the statutory sub-committees of the board, the first of which is the race fixtures committee which is an existing committee. We are changing the composition. We are reducing the number of members from six to five. This is covered in section 6(1)(iv). We also say the chairman shall be appointed by HRI. That is a reasonably normal provision when a sub-committee of a board is being appointed, that the board appoint the chairman. Up to now the chairman was, as a matter of right, a member of the racing regulatory body. Under this provision a sub-committee will still have a racing regulatory body member, but HRI will determine who the chairman is. It could be a member of the Turf Club, but it could also be any other member of the sub-committee.

Section 6(1)(vi) provides that the membership of the race fixtures committee be limited to members of HRI. It seems to be a reasonable provision that if one has a sub-committee making recommendations to the overall board, the members of the sub-committee should, equally, be members of the board. There are some governance changes for the race fixtures committee.

The third item to which I wish to draw the attention of members is section 6(1)(xi), that HRI shall not be bound by any recommendation of the race fixtures committee and that the final decisions on race fixtures shall be taken by HRI. That is a reasonably normal governance procedure, that if one has a sub-committee of a board, it make recommendations to the board. We have a broadly representative board, with three ministerial members, three Turf Club members and representatives of the tracks, breeders, owners, trainers and betting industry employees.

There is a reasonably robust governance structure in place.

2:50 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will deal with the committees individually. Is the media rights committee under this heading?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is further down. There is only one line on the media rights committee, at the end of the page.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have members any questions on the race fixtures committee?

Photo of Mary Ann O'BrienMary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My comment is a little left of field. The Dubai Duty Free Irish Derby was on at the weekend. The number of foreign runners was a little disappointing. We want our derby to be one of the jewels in the crown, almost like the Triple Crown in the United States. I wonder could we make a reference to international fixtures in the Bill. The French racing authorities moved their derby, which now clashes with our derby, making a haems of it, and caused the lack of foreign runners. We want our derby to be the centre stage of horse racing in Europe.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume the HRI shall not be bound.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

We can consider the Senator's suggestion. It will clearly be beyond the powers of the race fixtures committee of HRI to determine how some of these international fixtures are co-ordinated. In fact, I think the chief executive of HRI may have been on the radio this morning discussing the same issue and suggesting there needs to be better co-ordination. We can consider whether it is appropriate to put some reference to this in the Bill.

Photo of Mary Ann O'BrienMary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In light of the point made by Deputy Heydon about the situation in 20 years, I think it is something that needs to be considered now. I do not know if it is appropriate to put it into the legislation.

I did not realise the chairman of HRI was on the radio speaking about it.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The international dimension may be something that should be taken account of in considering race fixtures.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I cannot imagine that the addition of a phrase like that would alter the substance of the Bill too much. It is something we can consider.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 6 deals with committees. Section 6(1) deals with the race fixtures committee and subsection (5) states: "The chairman shall be appointed by HRI.", whereas the industries services committee and the betting committee appoint their own chairperson. Why is the race fixtures committee treated differently?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The industries services committee and the betting committee are representative committees, whereas the race fixtures committee is more in the nature of an executive committee. It is not entirely an executive committee because it does not make decisions but it makes recommendations to the board. I think that makes reasonable sense. There is possibly a greater sensitivity about determining who will chair the committee when one is trying to give representation to people. Essentially they are a different kind of committee and that is the reason for the way the chairman is determined.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chairman, does that mean the entire board of HRI will vote on who the chairperson of the race fixtures committee will be?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The term "HRI" in the Bill means the board.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Equally, the membership of this committee is limited to members of HRI, which is not the case on some of the other committees. Is that for the same reason?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The industries services committee and the betting committee are representative committees. In regard to the media rights committee, there is a recognition that occasionally some specific expertise is needed and therefore confining the membership to members of HRI might not be appropriate.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the media rights committee a new committee or has it been in existence?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is in existence, but the only change in the media rights committee is that the number of members has increased to five and it may include members who are not members of HRI. Up to now the membership of the committee has been confined to board members of HRI but there is a general recognition, and I do not think it is contentious, that there is a need for specific expertise at times when it comes to that very complex web.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Deering has raised a point on the industries services committee. Are there four standing statutory committees?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes, there are four statutory committees. The industries services committee and the betting committee are new committees and are included in the Bill on the basis of a recommendation from Indecon. I do not believe they are contentious in terms of the views of the stakeholders.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In subsection (10) of the betting committees, it states: "HRI may regulate the procedure of the betting committee.". Will Mr. Gleeson elaborate on the procedure, referred to in the subsection?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

What is meant by that is the standing orders, the quorum and how votes are taken and so on.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In relation to the betting committee at 20A. subsection (1) states:

"HRI shall establish a committee (“betting committee”) to focus on the requirements of the betting sector generally.". The word "requirements" is a very broad term. What does that mean?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is broad wording but HRI does not regulate the betting sector, however, in so far as it permits people to operate on race tracks, it has quite a narrow focus.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It accommodates them within the - - - - -

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The operation and administration of horse racing generally is something that the betting industry has an interest in and therefore it is appropriate that they have some representation on it.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does HRI have an oversight role?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

No. There are two other pieces of legislation that are in the process of being passed. One is from the Department of Finance and the other is the Department of Justice and Equality. HRI licenses the operators who operate on their tracks. It determines the conditions under which the operators can operate.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that under the terms of their licence?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It can also include members who are not members of the board of HRI.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is similar to the media rights committee and the industries services committee. Do members wish to raise issues on the two new committees? To go back to the 26 committee, are they statutory committees?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

There are four statutory committees.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other 26 committees are sectoral representatives. Would it be fair to say that the board of HRI is nominated from those 26 committees?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

There would be a committee for each race track, so that makes up the bulk of the committees. The equine, listed race, the pension trustees, are administrative committees and most of them are made up of individual race track representatives.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would quibble with the requirements of the betting sector generally. I think it is way too broad, given that it is about licensing them for a certain activity. Generally it would suggest that one could have any Uncle Tom, the kitchen sink and so on. Given the concerns there are, I know this is part and parcel of the business and I am not suggesting it ought not to be there, but in the legislative framework that seems very broad.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

That is an issue on which we can reflect.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 7 deals with prize money, which is what attracts the betters. Are there changes?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is proposed under section 26 (1) that: "HRI shall, in respect of each horse race at a race fixture at an authorised racecourse, approve the amount and form of any prize offered and, where the prize is in monetary form, make deductions from the prize money in accordance with HRI directives."

Essentially this is a reflection of current practice. There is no explicit reference to this in the current legislation, but de facto it is what happens.

In regard to section 26 (2) one of the reasons that deductions from prize money are made is that a number of charities are operated by the racing regulatory body, namely, the jockeys accident fund; the qualified riders accident fund; the jockeys emergency fund; and the Drogheda Memorial Fund.

These are very laudable efforts to provide assistance to people who are injured or have long-term disabilities as a result of racing, or their families. These are existing charities and are already funded by the levies. It was felt to be appropriate to add this little protection here to ensure if HRI wishes to amend a directive related to these deductions that it cannot do so, in respect of these particular charities, without the agreement of the racing regulatory body. Therefore, it is a protection of the status quo.

3:00 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any questions on head 7? No. Head 8 deals with corporate governance.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Head 8 is about providing the Minister with more power. It is arguable that these powers are implicit in any event but they were not explicit in the current legislation.
The powers allow the Minister to request information on activities, including compliance with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. Our other codes are policy documents that may issue from time to time, or in relation to its strategy, or in relation to its accounts. Section 8 allows the Minister and requires HRI, on foot of such a request, to provide the Minister with information in relation to these things.
With regards head 8(4), we spoke about the distinction between a directive and a direction earlier and I may have confused people with the wrong word. It states:

The Minister may direct HRI in relation to its compliance with codes or policy documents issued by a member of the Government.
Head 8(5) states:
The Minister may require HRI and the Racing Regulatory Body to agree procedures to ensure compliance with Government codes of practice, .....
The provisions form part of the cascading accountability. They provide that the Minister can instruct HRI, and the racing regulatory body, to come to some arrangements that are acceptable to him in relation to the calculation of financial requirements and, therefore, strengthens governance. It is arguable that one could do so anyway but it was felt appropriate to put some explicit provision into the heads.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any queries on head 8? No. Head 9 deals with liability for foal levy

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The owner or keeper of a foal must pay a levy when registering the foal in the stud-book. At the moment there is a slight lacuna in the legislation due to it not being clear what happens if somebody refuses to pay the levy and whether the holder of the stud-book can refuse to register the foal. The provision simply closes off the potential loophole. It means that when one registers a foal with Weatherbys one must pay the levy and if one does not do so then Weatherbys can refuse to register the foal which is a sensible provision. In fact, there is no issue with the payment of the foal levy. This provision is more a technical fix than a reflection of a problem with the payment of foal levies.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What happens in a worst case scenario? If somebody does not pay the levy then what is the status of the animal? The foal would not have a passport so he or she cannot be killed in a factory. What happens if somebody does not pay the levy?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I have been advised by my experts here that it is possible to get a passport but not a thoroughbred passport. Therefore, if one wants to register with Weatherbys one must pay the levy in advance.

With regards the situation mentioned by the Senator, which hopefully will not arise, it is possible to find a fix through the issuing of a white passport for a sport horse from one of the other passport issuing bodies. Obviously that would greatly diminish the value of the animal and there would be no pedigree.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it possible to resolve the situation?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is possible. The animal would have no pedigree which anyone who has gone to the trouble of breeding a thoroughbred foal would not be enthusiastic about.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think not. Head 10 deals with companies of the HRI which was referenced earlier in Mr. Gleeson's opening statement.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

We mentioned it earlier. The provision is a reflection of the current reality that HRI can, and does, establish companies to perform various functions. The provision is a clarification. We have included an explicit provision for something that might be regarded as implicit in the current legislation but it happens anyway.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The provision is in yellow print and states "with the consent of the Minister" for agriculture " and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform".

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Exactly and precisely. It is simply that the Minister for Finance was mentioned in the original provision.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The provision states "or with another person". Does that mean another body?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 11 deals with the racing regulatory body.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

There are significant parts of this provision which remain unchanged but I shall take the committee through the changes.
Head 11(a) provides that the racing regulatory body is "to solely and independently be responsible for the making .... and enforcing of the Rules of Racing" which is critically important. It will also be very important to the racing regulatory body that its integrity function is independent.
We included the phrase "following consultation with HRI". That does not suggest HRI has an
imprimatur over the modification of the rules of racing. However, it is sensible that when making rules that may impact on the cost associated with the administration of racing, or the cost to any of the participants in racing, that one would at least consult the HRI. The term used is "consultation" which means it does not require agreement.
Head 11(1)(c) refers to licensing racecourses which is the function of the Turf Club. The highlighted section states "subject to the licence fees being paid by the applicants to HRI." The provision streamlines the administrative function. As I mentioned earlier, and I shall reach it shortly, in order to avoid any undue interference with property rights the advice from the Office of the Attorney General was that if we streamline the function in this way the fees would have to be repaid to the Turf Club in order to avoid any interference with property rights. That would have to be done.
Head 11(1)(d) states:

to set charges for licences, registration of hunter certificates and participants in point to point steeplechases subject to consultation with HRI and having regard to the annual budget agreed under section42.
The new phrase in the provision is "subject to consultation". The provision does not suggest that HRI has an imprimatur over the fees to be charged but it must be consulted.
Head 11(1)(g) refers to codes of practice and assurance schemes for matters within its functions. These are additional functions which reflects current good practice and they give the Turf Club a little bit more flexibility in terms of how it chooses to apply its integrity function.
Head 11(1)(h) states "to ensure that the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Regulations for Point-to-Point Steeplechase .... are enforced." In other words, this is a direct consequence of the earlier wording which indicates that the rules of racing apply to point to points and, de facto, reflects the current reality.
I now refer the committee to the highlighted section on page 23. The provision reflects the advice we received from the Office of the Attorney General on the protection of the property rights of the racing regulatory body. To be clear, we want to streamline the administrative functions but we do not want to unduly interfere with anybody's property rights. I mean to the extent that HRI will be processing payments which relate to functions of the racing regulatory body, then it will have to give that money back to the racing regulatory body. That includes "its registration of hunter certificates or registration of participants in point to point steeplechases", which refers to its registration functions only, and "fines under the Rules of Racing." The provision is based on clear advice received from the Office of the Attorney General.

3:10 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the collection of fines part of the streamlining of administration and is it directly referenced earlier? If reimbursement is mentioned, I presume collection of fines is mentioned as well.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I am pretty sure it is. Head 5 states:


(i) the administration, and financial management of all aspects of Irish horseracing, incorporating Registry Office functions, including registration of hunter certificates and participants in point to point steeplechases, with the exception of –
There is a broad statement followed by a number of exceptions. The fines are implicit in that.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anybody wish to comment on head 11? We now come to head 12, the RRB accounts.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

We engaged in consultation with other Departments before drafting the heads of the Bill. This head is as a result of a request from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Essentially it is a provision that requires the racing regulatory body, which receives, if one excludes the Curragh and the Gallops from its finances, about 80% of the remainder of its income from the Exchequer through HRI.
This provision requires the racing regulatory body to keep accounts, which it does of course, and to publish them. It requires the body to be amenable to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which it is not at present. It requires the chief executive to be amenable to committees of the Oireachtas, where he is required to do so.
This is a question of good practice. I do not believe that the racing regulatory body or anybody associated with it will have any difficulty whatsoever with this provision. I think the body is quite happy to open its books and be amenable to the Oireachtas.
There is an item that deserves specific mention under head 12(5). We have already spoken about the Minister's power to obtain information and give a direction to HRI. This is part of that cascade of accountability. Head 12 (5) states:

Subject to subsection (6),the Racing Regulatory Body shall whenever requested by HRI, furnish information in relation to its functions under section 39(including such information in relation to its income derived from its statutory functions in order to assist HRI in determining annual budget requirements) as is specified in the request.
It is the normal cascade of accountability. If the Exchequer is giving the racing regulatory body funding for its integrity functions, it is only reasonable that one should know how it is going to be spent and its budgetary situation. In recognition of the particular importance of an independent integrity function, we have tagged on subsection (6) which suggests that a request by HRI under that section shall not compromise the racing regulatory body's provision of integrity services. It states, "(6) A request by HRI under subsection (5) shall not compromise the Racing Regulatory Body’s provision of integrity services." That is built in. I wish to make the point about the representative nature of the HRI board and the fact that it does have three Turf Club people on it and increased ministerial representations. The process is reasonably robust and protects the taxpayer in a more explicit way and also protects the integrity function of the racing regulatory body which is critically important for the functioning of the industry.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That ties in with what I was asking earlier. There is a safeguard so that if the integrity body, that is the RRB feels that some of the requests are putting a squeeze on it, there is provision to protect its integrity.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

In addition, there is the pre-existing arbitration facility on top of this.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this in addition?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It has never been used and I hope it will never come to that.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 13 deals with bookmakers and betting. I think it is the same as previously, but It is to explicitly mention them. Is that correct?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Exactly. That is it essentially. Point to point meetings are in any event subject to the same kinds of rules as mainstream racing. This is simply to say that bookmakers operating at point to point steeple chase meetings are subject to the same rules as at authorised racecourses. I do not think there is anything contentious there.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 14 deals with sanctions - rules of racing.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Our legal advisers thought it was important to have a statutory provision for due process. The Turf Club has quite strong powers when it comes to disciplining participants in racing. The due process is provided for in the rules of racing. The strong advice of our legal services division was that we should have some kind of statutory due process. It provides for an appeals procedure essentially in the event that the racing regulatory body makes a determination that might be prejudicial to one's income or one's future participation in racing. I do not believe that this is significantly different from what already exists under the rules of racing.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about transparency.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is arguable as to whether this is needed but this provision arises from a legal rather than a policy request.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is head 14(1) a new section?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It is an entirely new section.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 15 is the horse and greyhound fund.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

In this head, we have stronger control for the Minister and protection for the taxpayer. At present the Minister pays money by instalment to HRI. It is not clear from the existing legislation that the Minister can actually refuse to pay instalments. This head provides for more control over the issue of funding to HRI. It provides for a number of circumstances in which the Minister can withhold instalments or parts of instalments to HRI, and in fact, Bord na gCon, in instances where the Minister is not satisfied with the strategic plans of those bodies or he feels they are deficient or unreasonable, where they are deficient in the implementation of plans, where he has requested information from the bodies and they have not given it to him or where they fail to comply with a direction.

It is a sensible provision, but it is not indicative of any particular problem. There is no provision in the current legislation and it is a provision that should be there. It is filling a lacunae in the current legislation. It is stronger control for taxpayer's money.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are members clear on the rational behind that? Yes.

Head 16 deals with data sharing.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I mentioned this at the outset. Essentially we are trying to provide for a streamlining of administrative functions between HRI and the racing regulatory body. That may involve the amalgamation of two data bases, which in large part contain the same information about the same client base. There will be a need to share this information. There are two possibilities and I am not qualified to explain the detail of this.

One possibility is that the data could be shared entirely within the provisions of the current data protection legislation. If that is the case, we do not need a provision in the legislation. What we have done is to make a provision for possible need for legislation to facilitate streamlining and used square brackets to indicate this. If it is the case that in order to do what we want to do, we need to make some minor adjustment to the data protection provisions, then we will need some explicit provision in the legislation. We will take the guidance of the Office of the Attorney General on this. If the Office of the Attorney General states that we need to include some provision, then we will be guided by her and the drafting will be guided by her. What we have included, is not necessarily a reflection of what might end up in the Bill but we want to include it to signal the possibility that it would happen.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On this head, if one takes the provisions of subsections (4) and (9) has Mr. Gleeson discussed with the Attorney General what will happen in the case of persons who write that they do not want their data shared. On what grounds can somebody say he does not want his data shared. It is very open, that one is saying a person may write a letter to ensure data are not shared.

The majority of this data are in the public domain anyway.

3:20 pm

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

All I can say, and perhaps it is for good reason, is that there is paranoia about data protection. The burden is always with the public authority to justify the release or sharing of the data, and the power tends to be with the individual. A few issues arise. If someone is a member of the racing regulatory body or a turf club member, the turf club can insist that the next time one wants to be licensed by it, one can tick a box and agree to share one's data with Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, as a condition of one's membership or licence. That is fine. There is no difficulty then with sharing data once the individual has ticked that box.

The issue arises with regard to historical data. If a person has provided data in the past and it has not been indicated to him or her all the purposes for which this data might be used, he or she has a fairly strong hand when it comes to determining whether this data can be handed over. I do not believe this will be a real issue but there is justifiable paranoia about data protection now for various reasons and it is critically important that we do not jump into something, so to speak, without providing for it adequately in the legislation. I am not qualified to elaborate on the detail but whatever we do regarding data protection will be guided by the legal requirements as determined by the Attorney General's office, and we will take her guidance.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no need for an appeals process, therefore, because if people object to their data being shared, the only way that data can be shared is if one of the authorities goes to court to get a judgment. Mr. Gleeson referred to historical data. If, say, eight people are part of a horse syndicate, all their names are listed as the owners of the horse. If one of those eight objects, does the entire process stop? I am just checking-----

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I am not an expert on data protection legislation but we are talking about the retention of data by a public or a quasi-public body which receives taxpayers' funding. What private individuals do in the context of their own personal arrangements is a slightly different matter, but in this instance we have a public body which has information and a private body which has information. What we want, for the purposes of streamlining, is for them to be able to share that information both ways and, as I said, this provision is in square brackets in the Bill because it is a confession of ignorance, so to speak, and something that would be guided by the lawyers. That is all I can say.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will wait to see what is contained in the Bill.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The explanatory note states that this head, if required, can-----

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Exactly.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That probably summarises it.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

If this data is to be shared under the existing provisions of the data protection legislation, we will not need this provision

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is just to flag it in case it is needed.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is everybody happy with head 16? Agreed?

Head 17 is an amendment to the Animal Remedies Act 1993 referred to in the opening statement.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

This is about ensuring that the regulatory body is empowered to do what it needs to do in terms of gathering information. Currently, under the Animal Remedies Act 1993 the Minister has power to appoint persons to carry out all the functions of an authorised officer. That means that if an authorised officer is appointed, he or she could walk onto any farm and have various powerful policing powers, and it is an all-embracing power. This is a significant change. We are saying that the Minister has the power to appoint an authorised officer for the exercise of all or any of the functions, subject to such conditions as the Minister considers appropriate. For example, this would allow the Minister decide that for the purposes of horse racing, a particular species, a particular set of locations - trainers' yards, race tracks - racing regulatory body officials could have the powers of authorised officers because when it comes to serious investigations or prosecutions the tendency is to engage with the Department's special investigations unit, which has the full powers of authorised officers. We would always envisage that in circumstances such as those there would be close co-operation between the Department and the turf club. Nevertheless, this is an enabling provision and therefore it would allow the Minister to expand the powers of turf club operators and qualify that in a way that it was not possible to qualify it in the past. The phrase "all or any of the functions" was previously "all of the functions", therefore, a turf club official could not be appointed to carry out all of the functions of an authorised officer because they are all-embracing and go way beyond the horse racing sector.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would that pertain to parts of the Animal Welfare Act also?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what governs the application of the rules by whomever is an authorised officer.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had a discussion on that.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

The Senator is right. There is a separate provision in the Animal Welfare Act to allow turf club members have the powers of authorised officers in the context of animal welfare. This is about remedies. It is about the use of steroids in horse racing and so on.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned fines earlier. Would some of these sanctions include an on-the-spot fine?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is as distinct from fines the turf club has been able to impose heretofore under its own rules of governance. These would be governed under the Animal Remedies Act as opposed to the Animal Welfare Act or any other governance the regulatory body has had in the past.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Absolutely. The Animal Remedies Act defines offences and if these powers were used-----

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under those.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

-----presumably it would be with a view to prosecuting.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Whether they were on-the-spot fines or prosecution.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Yes.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there was a fine or sanction under the Act they would be reimbursed to the appropriate body.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It would go to HRI in the first instance.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And wherever after.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

Exactly.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is everybody happy with that?

Head 18 is self-explanatory. It repeals the Horse Racing Ireland (Membership) Act 2001. That is understood. We are not voting on anything here, we are here to understand it. The head provides the Short Title and citation to the Bill as well as its commencement. Again, that is self-explanatory. Are members happy with that?

The purpose of today's meeting was that members would be given an explanation by the officials on the amendments to the Horse Racing (Amendment) Bill. To that end I thank Mr. Brendan Gleeson and his colleagues for appearing before the committee at short notice. Whatever apprehension the officials may have had, it is fair to say that they have a thorough grasp of the draft legislation and have been able to share their interpretation of it with us in a way in which we could readily understand. The line of questioning was precise. This was due to the fact that the officials had made it easy for us to get a grasp of the Bill.

Other stakeholders will appear before the committee before the recess so that we can progress our consideration of the heads of the Bill. As it may not be possible to have them all appear before the committee physically we may have written submissions from some.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.09 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 July 2014.