Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 17, to delete lines 37 to 42, to delete page 18, and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 4.

This amendment is about the sanctions and appeals concerning the rules of racing in section 13. I understand that the Minister has received much representation on this matter from the racing regulatory body which is very exercised over this and I understand HRI may also be exercised over it. I hope therefore that the Minister will look positively at this amendment. This is all about the rules of racing and the investigation process. The racing regulatory body is obliged to operate fair procedures and to adhere to natural justice both as a matter of public law, which as we know can be subject to judicial review, and private law.

In the Supreme Court case that the racing regulatory body won last year, Mr. Justice O'Donnell concluded that the decision of the Turf Club, as the racing regulatory body after 1994, was amenable to judicial review. That decision may have little practical consequence for the Turf Club since it is already obliged to operate fair procedures - it does so as a matter of private law - and to give reasons for its decisions. No other sport, apart from greyhound racing, has its disciplinary process legislated for. However, as a matter of private law, each is required to have fair procedures and to comply with natural justice.

The amendments to section 45 are, therefore, not necessary to ensure or increase fairness. The explanatory memorandum states that section 45 places a statutory obligation for transparency in regard to sanctions imposed by the racing regulatory body. However, the Minister must realise that under proposals in section 13, if the racing regulatory body needs to impose a mandatory fine of €100 on a participant in the sport, it will have to go through a number of steps, as well as having an investigation and an inquiry. It will then have to reach a view that the person has breached the rules of racing. That person will then have to be afforded an opportunity to make representation, and the person will then have to be informed of the procedures to be taken, although this may have happened earlier. They will also have to be informed of the place and time of any proposed hearing.

This means, if I might say so, that it is a lawyers' paradise. It is great news, but the only people who will have to pick up the tab at the end of the day are the taxpayers. I am being honest about that. This will be a huge procedure, given the way it is outlined here. I spoke to the racing regulatory body last week and it has its own legal advice which is probably far more eminent that I will ever be. It was of the view that under this section and given the way it is laid out, the racing regulatory body will be unable to suspend any horses.

We should be careful in this regard. Could we imagine that the independent regulator for the multi-million horse racing industry was not able to ban a horse that had been administered an anabolic steroid, for example? That would surely make us a laughing stock and would not be good for us, if that were the position. Having looked though this section, I am concerned about it. The last thing the Minister wants is for the body to be unable to apply sanctions.

There is no need for this section and it should be removed. It could damage us both at home and internationally. The Minister referred earlier to the heads of the Bill, under which affected persons were allowed to appeal to the District Court. We are now arriving at a stage where they could not sanction a horse. The last thing we want is to introduce legislation that leaves loopholes or deficits in procedure on impartiality and fairness. Poorly drafted legislation can leave lots of lacunae, so the Minister should taken on board these clearly expressed and legitimate concerns.

People at the coalface daily are more au fait with the minutiae of this matter than we are. I would be surprised if HRI was not of the same view. The current system of sanctions works well because it is fair and impartial. The important thing is that less legal involvement is better, although that is perhaps a bit rich coming from me.

See this speech in context