Mr. John Weld:

It is a pleasure to be here alongside the staff of the Irish Stable Staff Association, with which we have had a long-term relationship. This is my first outing in such august company and I hope members will bear with me if a lose my way or fumble.
I am chairman of the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners which represents more than 2,000 members, which equates to approximately 60% of racehorse owners in the country who, in turn, own approximately 80% of active racehorses here. I was elected democratically from within the membership. I have been a council member for ten years, was treasurer for six years and have been chairman for the past year and a half. In terms of my involvement with the association, I am a small owner who got involved because I was tired of hearing owners being painted as wealthy and affluent when the reality was far from that. Most owners only own one or two horses or a share in a horse. There is nothing for which we need to apologise in that we are spending our own after-tax earnings on this activity. In 2013 owners put more than €300 million into their activities. They compete for prize money of €46 million, of which 25% is put up by owners. Essentially, they are putting up more than €300 million to compete for a little over €30 million of outside money. The industry is one of the main fuels for a betting industry with a €4.5 billion turnover. One of the greatest deficiencies in recent times has been the failure of the betting industry to make a fair contribution to the Exchequer or prize money.
With regard to the heads of the Bill, a couple of issues arise. First, in our view owners are under-represented on the board of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI. As stated, owners put in almost €300 million per annum to the industry and deserve more seats on the board. We want to play a bigger role and contribute to a more vibrant racing community. We can only do this through the board of HRI. Second, while the current structure of HRI is good, for the same reason outlined by the chairman of HRI and its board members, we believe people should be permitted to serve a maximum of two years on the board. We believe there should also be new blood in the form of the CEO at regular intervals. While the current CEO has been and is doing an excellent job, given the vibrancy of the position, we do not believe the CEO should serve for longer than two terms. The scenario with regard to betting on horse racing is changing so dramatically that it is important that the CEO be able to keep pace with it.
On head 5 which deals with the amendment of the general functions of HRI, section 10(1)(d) and (i) of the Act relate to grants for the development of racecourses. It is important that racecourses be eligible for grants to improve their infrastructure. Existing racecourses are antiquated. In terms of football, rugby and soccer, stadiums are state of the art, including the Aviva Stadium, Croke Park and so on. Also, the Government recently provided the GAA with a significant grant for a new stadium at Pairc Uí Chaomih. As I said, racecourses are antiquated. We ask that grants be provisional, dependent on the provision of proper facilities for owners, trainers and stable staff. There is no reason for people to be subjected to substandard facilities in this day and age.
On the general functions of HRI, under subsection (2) it has various powers, including the power to issue directives setting rules and procedures. It is too authoritarian that any entity is able to make rules by issuing directives. There is a need for more consultation and explanations in this regard. The issuance of directives is not a reasonable way to go. It is important to ensure any directive issued is not contrary to the prevailing rules of racing. It concerns me that a person would have the power, without prior proper consultation and transparency, to issue a directive to correct what was perceived to have been a wrong.
On head 6 which deals with committees, the race fixtures committee presents an issue for us. Currently, owners are represented on the race programmes committee. While there is no mention in the heads of the Bill of this committee being removed, it appears to be duplicated in the form of the race fixtures committee which, under the heads of the Bill, will comprise five members, all of whom will be members of HRI. The race fixtures committee deals with detailed matters such as the eligibility of a horse to run in a race. We know from our owners who are members of the race programmes committee that prior to a meeting they have to do three or four days work in sorting out what is needed, including the conditions to be met and so on. Providing for the membership of the race fixtures committee to be confined to members of HRI is too restrictive. Racehorse owners should have two representatives on this committee. The race programmes committee has always been very vibrant and active and is critical to racing. We have always elected to that committee individuals who have time and expertise to bring to it and would like to continue to do so.
We believe the race fixtures committee should be able to reallocate fixtures where a course does not meet performance criteria as established by HRI. Performance criteria include health and safety issues, the ability to fill a race, ground conditions and so on. Racecourses that do their job well should be rewarded, while those who do so poorly should pay a penalty.
On head 11 which relates to the racing regulatory body, section 11(1)(a) states the racing regulatory body will continue to be solely and independently responsible for the making, following consultation with HRI, and enforcing of the rules of racing. The phrase "following consultation with HRI" was previously "after informing HRI". Nobody is solely or independently responsible for anything if he or she can only do so after consultation. This means that HRI can, by way of directive, override or prevent enforcement. This has the capacity to create grey areas, confusion and controversy.

This is a worrying part of the heads of the Bill. A side effect is that it would probably have the net effect of making HRI and, by extension, the Minister, jointly and severally liable in case of a legal challenge against the regulatory body. As we have seen, these come frequently, maybe not every year but every now and then. If the regulatory body is defending it, that is one thing, but if the regulatory body, HRI and Minister defend it, it will turn into a mess.

Based on last year's figures, owners are net contributors of approximately €270 million annually. The figure was probably approximately 40% higher five or six years ago. This comes from their after-tax earnings and from foreign direct investment. Although approximately 30% of the income to Irish racing comes from foreign owners and foreign direct investment, this important aspect of racing is glossed over or not handled properly. These foreign owners come for the calibre of horsemanship available in Ireland, not for the racecourse facilities. They hope their trainers will have horses that will appear in Cheltenham or Royal Ascot for them, not the Curragh or Punchestown, which need to be seriously revamped. During the past decade, the owners have contributed more than €3 billion, which primarily fuels rural employment. Since the downturn in 2007, there has been a reduction of approximately 4,000 people in racing, which has been a major haemorrhage in rural areas. Many people have left Ireland and gone abroad. Racing is done in rural areas where there are very few other employment opportunities.

Owners require a truly and completely independent regulatory body. We want the referee to be fair, appropriate and final. In countries that have adopted models whereby the authorities running racing also ran the integrity services, there has been too much debate about the independence of the authorities and many of their judgments have been called into question. Our nearest neighbour, England, has been particularly guilty in this area. The Bill is supposedly aimed at trying to streamline racing. Any entity which aims to streamline its services must examine cost reduction by outsourcing part or all of its administration. Everything must be considered, and cheaper services must be reviewed. I thank the committee for its time and patience in listening to me and I will be very happy to answer any questions.