Mr. John Weld:

Deputy Ó Cuív hit some points nicely. As regards the number of seats on the board of HRI, the Deputy may well have made a very valid point. I have not been a member of the HRI board so I am not party to all the details and proceedings. However, I know that it is difficult to get people from our membership to go forward for a seat in HRI. A huge amount of work is required by each board member. As Mr. Caldwell has said, apart from being on the general board of HRI, he is on five different committees, which is the norm. There may be a good case for more seats on the board. It would mean a member would no longer have to be on five different committees, and we could have a member who was au faitwith requirements of race fixtures. There is a lot of merit in what was said by the Deputy, and the size of the board is well worth visiting.
A CEO's term of office is almost like a Member's seat in Dáil Éireann. I know Deputy Ó Cuív has probably been there much longer than the kind of period I am talking about. The racing scene has been very dynamic in recent years, but the really dynamic part has been the betting sector. In 1990 the sum of £37 million was collected in betting tax from an industry with a turnover of around £300 million but, in 2012, €27,000 was collected from an industry with a turnover of €4.5 billion. I cannot understand it. It did not happen with me or my income, anyway. The scenario is changing so quickly. The racing scene is becoming more international and is focused towards international targets such as Cheltenham. We are trying to get a champions' weekend going in Ireland in order to feed into the champions' weekend in England and the Arc weekend or champions' weekend in France, and then on to the Breeders' Cup in America. The racing scene has changed and is changing daily and rapidly. The races in Ireland that were pillars of the racing community worldwide now must fight for their positions because of the importance of champions' weekends, the Breeders' Cup and races in Hong Kong and Singapore that are worth fortunes and multiples of what races are worth here in Ireland. We need new blood in the industry to cope with the fast-changing scene.
I will not pick on an individual, but I accept that appointment to the board may get rid of good candidates. Also, if the candidates are good they will find places elsewhere in the racing scene and community, from which they will contribute. New blood and new outlooks are important. I do not expect to be chairman and face the committee here in ten years' time. I hope someone new will add a new dimension to proceedings.
Funding was mentioned. I believe it should come from betting turnover, which is the model used everywhere in the world except in some of the oil states, where racing is used as a publicity machine and funded by in-house or government sources. Racing needs better funding, but it can only come from a betting tax, which is probably the only reasonable, fair and sustainable way to enhance the development of racecourses.
Several members mentioned that racecourses are antiquated. I am a diehard racing person. I know where I am going and I am not fussed about what I can get at a racecourse sandwich-wise or whatever. However, when a guy takes his family to the racecourse at Naas or the Curragh there must be 21st-century facilities. He does not want to pay €5 for a frozen sandwich or €3 for tea in a paper cup. Facilities must be up to a high standard.
Deputy Heydon mentioned stable staff. My association has an excellent relationship with stable staff. I mentioned in my presentation that improved facilities are essential; this is one of the prerequisites for further expenditure on racecourse development, especially with regard to owners, trainers and stable staff. Owners pay for their horses to be cared for and want them well looked after by people who are happy and well looked after themselves. Owners pay a proper rate for their horses to be cared for and expect stable staff to be looked after properly, appropriately and with good facilities.

We have an excellent relationship, which I hope will Mr. Caldwell reiterate, and I expect that to continue. I was happy that we were on the same podium today. I believe this takes me through Deputy Ó Cuív's points.

I thank Deputy Pringle for his support for the stable staff in terms of seats. The owners merit better representation on a board, as they are essentially funding the show. We appreciate that seats are at a premium. As to Deputy Ó Cuív's suggestion that there should be more seats, I am not an expert on the composition or perfect size of boards, but a great deal of work is done by the board of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, as Mr. Caldwell stated. When we are seeking people to go forward for a seat, it is a major issue for us. They are elected from across our membership because it takes so much time.

From my reading of the Bill's heads, the manner in which the directives will be used seems all-encompassing. I am not saying that I read the heads right or took the right meaning from them, but if I can take that meaning, someone else can as well down the road. The process needs to be clearer, simpler and more transparent than simply being able to issue a directive. I would liken it to having the Army being able to issue a directive to the police. There will be confusion at the very least.

I thank Deputy Heydon for his comments on the owners' representation and for highlighting the fact that it is after-tax money that is spent on the horses. This is the owner's pastime. He or she is spending money that would otherwise be spent on golf clubs, boats, mistresses or all three. Equally, we must recognise the level of inward investment generated by this business. As the owners' association, we represent everyone from the Aga Khan, who is head of the world's Ismaili Muslim community, and Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum all the way down to syndicates in which as many as 20 people might own a single horse. We try to be as fair-minded as possible. Like Deputies representing their constituents, we cannot satisfy everyone always, but we are open and listen to people, are available to speak with anyone at any time and try to be as representative as we can.

Racecourse facilities were mentioned. They are basic. There was a time when the owners' bar was important. That situation has changed a great deal for the simple reason that one cannot have half a dozen gin and tonics at the races and drive home. The owners' bar has fallen somewhat out of favour or seen a reduction in its turnover. As such, many racecourses have got rid of their bars and there are no owners' facilities. There need to be facilities where an owner can bring a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend or family, sit down and have a cup of tea or coffee. We are not asking for five-course meals or the like, but just an opportunity to get away from the crowd.

Recently, a trainer made the important point to me that trainers had nowhere to meet the owners. If a trainer wants to speak with an owner, before the race to build up hope and afterwards to explain why the horse ran badly, there is no dedicated facility where they can meet. People with horses running have been voting with their feet and do not want to go to racecourses like the Curragh, which is our premier racecourse. Some smaller racecourses are almost doing better because they never got sucked into the corporate money trap and have taken better care of their clientele. I could refer to courses like Sligo, Downpatrick and Bellewstown. Some racecourses do a good job and there is no reason all of the others cannot do likewise. If the availability of facilities needs to be made a prerequisite for getting race fixtures or more development money, so be it. If an owner goes abroad, one is looked after royally. In England, Japan, America or anywhere else, the owner is seen as the person who is funding the racing on that day. His or her horse will play a significant part in the betting turnover from which racecourses get their incomes. Ireland is probably at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of owners' facilities.

I cannot say enough about integrity. We have good integrity in our racing, but it is being challenged from what members might regard as an unlikely source, namely, the lack of prize money. The better the prize money the horses are competing for, the better the integrity. If a jockey and a trainer are fighting for a €50,000 race, they will get 10% of it if they win, which is a significant chunk of money. If they are fighting for a race that is worth €4,000, they will only get €400 for winning. The betting turnover in Ireland is €4.5 billion. One would expect minor races to have no betting significance, but they have large turnovers. If a jockey, trainer or owner is not gaining proper compensation for a hard fought race win, it will open a can of worms through betting channels. Horses can be laid to lose, never mind win money. It is important that there be more prize money so that integrity can be maintained. This is apart from any debate we might have about directives or otherwise. The more valuable the racing, the more straightforward the integrity. People fight harder for decent prize money.

Senator O'Brien referred to rural Ireland, development and employment. Rural Ireland is where horse racing is based. All of the stables and, with the exception of Leopardstown, race courses are in rural Ireland. It is an important part of rural employment. In the past eight years, there has been a reduction of approximately 4,000 employees in the horse industry, including racing, breeding, racecourses, etc. It is a colossal reduction. However, there are still approximately 16,000 employees, which makes the industry a significant employer. Almost all of that employment is in rural areas. I am referring to trainers, stable staff, farriers, farmers selling hay, feed suppliers, vets, people supplying medicines and transport providers. I would hate to think of the amount of tax paid on the diesel used in transporting horses around the country.

The industry's integrity was queried. Most countries seem to have an independent integrity service above the management level of racing.

That has a degree of independence which guarantees autonomy and fairness and that the integrity services are not altered to meet commercial requirements or news. It is very important that the integrity services are not interlinked with the commercial operation of racing. It is very important that the biggest owner does not carry more clout than the smallest one. If my horse is running against the multi-billionaire, I would like to think that the referee will blow the whistle as quickly for him as for me. I have to have that impression. If I have any doubts about that, the cat is out of the bag and we cannot get it back. We must be particularly careful on that. In the UK, all the integrity services have been brought into professional staff, which is a hugely expensive operation. I am not saying that anything was done wrong or that there was anything that was not entirely above board but there were instances where the optics were not correct. Press conferences were given with managers of staff who had been reprimanded for giving illegal medications and so on. That should never have happened. The judge should not be giving a press conference with the manager of the convicted. The optics are important when it comes to integrity.

Does the Bill address issues? This Bill does not really do anything for racing. What it does is give the HRI more power over the rest of racing and the board of the HRI. There is nothing in it for racing. I have read this possibly 20 times trying to figure it out. This is probably because I do not know how to read those Bills. If I mistranslate it, other people will do so down the road. My translation of it is that this is all window dressing to empower the HRI. The HRI is an excellent organisation. Do not get me wrong on that. The Bill does not address too many issues that are pertinent to racing and is disappointing in that respect. Possibly it has been unfortunate because it is coming in before the finances of racing are sorted out. We have been promised for five or six years that the finances will be sorted out through the betting tax and it still has not happened. Perhaps it has been a little unfortunate in that respect. If the HRI was apportioned more money, we might be more predisposed to giving it more power. At the moment, it is fighting over six pence.

A question was asked about the owners' liaison officer, which is ITM. ITM is an important concept and I am not totally certain that HRI has grasped this concept properly almost since its inception. The owners' liaison officer is also an important concept. It is important that it has people there to promote Irish racing abroad and to promote ownership both in Ireland and abroad but I feel it is a concept that the HRI has not really grasped properly. There are some nice people in there who are doing a reasonable job but the thoroughbred marketing area is one that has been handled in a stepmotherly way by the HRI and I do not think it has received the attention and care it should have received. I am not talking about it needing more money thrown at it. I am talking about it needing better direction. I am sure I have created as many questions as I have answered. If there are any more, I am happy to come back to them.