Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also want to be associated with the remarks regarding our outgoing Chair, Deputy Jackie Cahill. It is no secret that Jackie, along with being a colleague, is a very good friend of mine. While we might knock sparks off each other as quickly as anybody else on an issue, we have had a very good working relationship. It was always a pleasure to be here at his request to step into the Chair if he had somewhere else to go. Perhaps the clerk could convey to him the expressions of high regard made here this evening. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, this committee is here for the good of dealing with the topics in front of its members. Politics was left outside the door. That came down to how Jackie chaired the committee and approached everything. He will be a loss to these Houses and we wish him well and thank him for services rendered.

I always have to put on the record that I am a racing man. I am a director of Kilbeggan Racecourse, as is known. Also for the record, I am a horse owner. I would have been the proud owner of a runner in the 4.45 p.m. race in Dundalk only she turned up in season this morning.

I apologise for having to leave for a vote. It was the famous vote on the Finance Bill, which is now passed. As they say in racing, the white flag is officially raised. I could not miss the vote and I apologise if I repeat anything said while I was away. The guests can tell me they have dealt with any matter I raise if that is the case and I will be able to find the response in the transcript.

I will probably concentrate mainly on the Mazars report, which we got yesterday evening and which I read. I welcome it and all the actions coming from it, but I want to go back to why it had to be commissioned in the first place. Saying we will leave it now and walk on is like saying that, although there were problems, they will never happen again. We cannot turn our backs on what did happen. I have a few questions based on that. There are two paragraphs in the material on the report with which we were supplied that I find very damning. I will take it from there. They are about the payment of the former CEO. They state:

On this basis we do not consider that this payment fell within the rules and criteria of the Scheme. We consider that the use of public funds provided by HRI to IHRB for the purpose of a retirement payment to the Former CEO, was not specifically sanctioned in writing by HRI. We believe such a formal/written sanction should have been required under the governance arrangement for retirement and redundancy payments established by HRI.

From a review of the Financial Statements of IHRB for the year here from a review of the financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2021, we noted that the retirement amount paid to the Former CEO was reported as being part of the Voluntary Redundancy and Early Retirement Scheme. Based on our review and analysis, as noted above, this payment was not made or formally approved within the criteria of the Scheme, and this disclosure is therefore incorrect.

That is in IHRB’s accounts. It is public funding. As said on a couple of occasions while I was here this evening, we are getting more and more grief every year when it comes to us – perceived to be racing people – sanctioning the horse and greyhound fund. Then one reads what I have just quoted. It is in the public domain. I just quoted it for the purpose of my question. The questions raised are still not answered. It is okay to say that what happened happened and that there are recommendations from a company – they cost €80,000 – to ensure it will never happen again, but it did happen and we need answers. The retirement amount is recorded in the accounts as being part of the voluntary redundancy and early retirement scheme.

The only word missing is "or". It should read "and or early retirement". Did the man take voluntary redundancy or early retirement? Why did he receive €141,000 more than was in the package? Did any heads roll over this? The argument that this is never going to happen again and that we should move on does not wash with me to be honest.

This all came to light at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. Mr. John Murphy's predecessor was on paid leave for over a year. I read last night about what was going on. There were voluntary redundancies. How many people applied for them and how many were unsuccessful in their application? Compulsory redundancy was also mentioned and I would like to know more about that too. The money was not there to pay them or to pay the over-and-above payment for the CEO's retirement. In fairness to Mr. Murphy’s predecessor, from my reading of it, he found himself in a situation in which the wage checks were going to bounce. He got €350,000 to make sure that did not happen by moving money from one account to another in order to get over the hump because €141,000 was spent that had not been budgeted for. He got over the hump and then the money went back. Did he leave of his own free will after one year of garden leave? Is he the only person who fell on his sword? I believe he was doing the best he could to ensure wage checks did not bounce. There are a lot of questions to be answered before we accept that the systems in place now are the solution to the problem because this problem happened.

I have a big grievance. As I said at the outset, I am racing man. I attend a lot of racing and talk to a lot of racing people. A lot of people are annoyed and will be even more annoyed when they read this report because it damages the good reputation of racing. The reading of this report could not be more damaging to the good reputation of racing. As people said to me on the racetracks, a trainer called John Joseph Hanlon, better known as “The Shark”, inadvertently - and it was careless - did not secure a tarpaulin properly over a dead horse on a Friday evening when he needed to move it or he would have been in bother for not moving before the following Monday morning. He received a ten-month suspension as a result. Horse welfare is involved when horses have to be moved. The suspension has been halved on appeal. Those horses have to be moved. There are jobs at loss. That man is suffering for a little bit of recklessness in a rush on a Friday evening. I am being told by racing people that this man is being used as an example. No one will suffer in this case, however. Who is getting the ten-month suspension over what happened here? Who is going to lose their job? Who is going to have to sell off their horses? Who is going to have to let staff go for the now reduced time of six months? I am only relaying what has been said to me on the racetracks. He is being used by the IHRB as an example to show that it is running such a tight ship and that this is how it deals with someone who brings racing into disrepute. Who, however, is suffering and falling for this?