Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I apologise for not being here earlier, I was at another committee. Senator Mary Ann O'Brien touched on one question for the trainers. In their presentation the trainers asked to be associated with HRI rather than the regulatory body. Why is that the case, seeing as every other section within the industry is under the regulatory body? Why should the trainers be excluded?

Another question for the trainers is to do with fixtures. There are approximately 350 fixtures per annum. I do not know whether Mr. Meade is on the fixtures committee, he probably is. Is that too many or is it sufficient, given the number of races with small numbers of horses running? In this regard I highlight our flagship race, the Irish Derby. This is no reflection on owners or trainers but it only had five runners this year. That does not go down well for the future, particularly in the case of the flagship event. I have seen this happen with pattern races. Are there too many pattern races? Could this have led to the problem that Deputy Heydon highlighted, that is, the fact that the open meeting clashed with the Punchestown meeting and that the bookmaking industry had put such an emphasis on the former? It was a great meeting. Children and everyone who represents the future, including punters, goers, jockeys and those in all parts of the industry, go to such meetings. I am keen to hear a comment on that.

In their submission the thoroughbred breeders asked for the removal of point-to-point racing from the regulation. Why is that? It is an integral part of racing. Mr. Meade is aware that most of his owners buy horses from the point-to-point sector. What if there is no regulation or integrity associated with that? This is something we are trying to do on the greyhound side. Coursing is not overseen by the regulatory body but we would like to see it brought on board because there is betting there as well. We want to have some sort of integrity associated with it. I am keen to hear the comments of the breeders.

All four groups before the committee referred to funding. They have probably honed in on the betting side of things. There is no mention of the tote within this legislation. It is not even mentioned in the betting committee. Tote Ireland has been a loss-maker to the industry and has made no contribution to racing. Are the deputations keen to see the tote directly involved in the betting committee or some scrutiny of it by the betting committee? As I said earlier, it is adding no value to the racing industry. There are other sides related to funding that should be considered. The tote is one area, tax betting is another and sponsorship is a key area that we should consider.

All the groups have mentioned media rights on several occasions. Media rights will be a major part of the funding of the industry in future, particularly racing itself. I would hate to see initiatives by racetracks whereby they sell their media rights. In particular, I take on board Punchestown, which has several grade 1 races that its sells to the French market. This allows betting to be done overseas. It is vital to incentivise racetracks that have media rights and a product to sell their media rights to improve the entire sector. I realise the jockey deputation might not agree with that. They are probably the stars but the horses are stars as well. There is potentially huge money on that side of things as well.

The betting Bill is coming up. Tax is paid by every punter who lays a bet one way or the other except on the tote. There is no tax income to the racing industry from the tote. If I lay a bet of €20 with Ladbrokes then Ladbrokes pays the tax for me but if I put it on the tote no tax goes to the racing industry. That should be considered as well.