Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will consider the general scheme of the Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2014 with representatives of the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners and the Irish Stable Staff Association. I welcome from the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners Mr. John Weld, chairman, and Mr. Aiden Burns, manager, and from the Irish Stable Staff Association Mr. Bernard Caldwell, chairman; Mr. Paddy Curran, PRO; and Mr. Paddy Doyle, treasurer. I thank everyone for attending.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr.Weld to make his opening statement.

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.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was hoping we might have got a tip for one of this evening's race meetings but we will forgive Mr. Weld.

Mr. John Weld:

I have been trying to read yesterday's results rather than trying to figure out today's.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you Mr. Weld. It is obvious that the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners has gone through the draft legislation forensically and has picked up on nuances. We have discussed some of these with the officials during the briefing. We will come back to it. I invite Mr. Caldwell to make his presentation followed by questions and comments from committee members. This is a useful exercise.

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

I thank the committee for having the Irish Stable Staff Association here. Although we are on the board of HRI, I will speak on the area of racing we know better. The Irish Stable Staff Association was originally formed in 1970 and became part of the HRI board when it was established in 2001. This was a major step forward for our organisation. It is proposed in the heads of the Bill that we would be asked to share the seat on the board with two or three other groups, such as the jockeys. We represent approximately 4,000 people in the industry over the Thirty-two Counties and are the biggest group representing anybody in the industry. Therefore, our function is significant.

Our seat on the board is very important to us and has made major changes to our organisation. It has helped us get more recognition from all parts of the industry. In the past, stable staff were not treated well by many people. We have changed this and would like to continue this progress to ensure our members receive equal payment and status in racing. Losing our seat or a part of it would destroy our organisation completely. There are organisations on the board which will retain up to three seats. Their seats could be reduced to two in order that we be given our own seat. The average income of our members is very low, around the industrial wage. Our members earn €9.72 per hour. If we lose our seat and our powers we will not able to fight to keep that income level up, which we need to do.

Horse racing should be funded totally from the betting tax. We would like the betting tax to increase from 1% to 3%. The Government should not have to fund horse racing. Horse racing has suffered over the past six years and the contribution to the horse and greyhound fund has reduced from approximately €70 million to approximately 48% this year. This affects our members' salaries. Part of their salaries are derived from pool money, which is 0.3% of the owners' share when they win a race. This can be a significant amount to many staff around the country. However, with the reduction in the contribution to horse racing, pool money had decreased drastically in recent years.

We would like to see if the betting tax could be introduced. Somebody is not doing his or her job properly. Years ago, betting tax was at 20%, it decreased to 5% and then it was abolished. Bringing it to 3% should not be a major problem. We would like racecourse facilities to be improved, and the only way it will happen is through the extra money we could get from the betting tax. Our staff might leave home at 7 a.m. and return at 11 p.m. or midnight, and they need to be treated properly. Without a seat on the board, as proposed in the heads of Bill, we would not be able to fight our corner.

We are on several committees, and I am on approximately five or six committees, and we therefore have great insight into what is happening in racing. We are fully behind the Indecon report and can see all the benefits it will have. There is a divide in racing between the turf club and HRI, and it must be removed. The Bill was first introduced two years ago in Galway and has moved very slowly, to say the least. We need to move on. Racing has become one of the worst supported sports in the country. Soccer, Gaelic games and snooker get far more coverage on television.

We have to fight to get something like 24 days of racing coverage on RTE, which is a bit of a disaster. As previous speakers said, the racing industry is the backbone of the Irish countryside. No matter where one goes in countryside in Ireland, one will see horses. Those horses need minding and our staff do much of that minding. We need people to understand that our 4,000 staff are extremely important to the industry. They look after very valuable horses and work long hours. It would be a major setback to remove the seat on the board held by our organisation. I urge the members to give strong consideration to our role and I hope our organisation can have a full seat on the board of Horse Racing Ireland in future years. I thank the members for inviting us here this morning and if they have any questions we will try to answer them.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this meeting is to give stakeholders in the industry an opportunity in a public forum to give their position and observations on what they see as being the good, the bad and whatever else in between. Their views will be taken on board by the committee. While it will be a Government decision ultimately, this meeting affords the stakeholders an opportunity to articulate their views in a public forum and it also affords the members the opportunity to give their opinions and ask questions. I call Deputy Ó Cuív.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives and I have noted their submissions with interest. The representatives of both associations have made a case for having more members on the board and those views must be seriously considered. What we must figure out is how many people should be on board. The number proposed is 12. Is there any major reason, for argument's sake, that the number could not be 15? The other consideration is the divvying out of the seats. Have the representatives a view on the overall size of the board? Is 12 the maximum number or could it be increased? I hate when somebody comes in and says they want one seat allocated among three or four bodies that have no connection. The stable employees are very different from the jockeys; they have completely different roles in racing just as the owners have. I do not understand the logic of the measure in the scheme of the Bill providing that "one [member] shall be nominated by jockeys, stable employees and persons employed in the horseracing industry being the chairman of the industry service committee". The representatives might clarify whether that means that three groups will have one seat.

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

Yes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is three separate groups that do not have any common membership. If that is the position, I would like it clarified because it seems as if somebody is saying "the board had to have 12 members and we have run out of places". If the representatives of the owners association are saying there are not enough places, rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul, are they saying that the board should be bigger? I am open to the idea that we would examine it and I am not wedded to a particular single number. If it is, say, a board of 12 members, my experience is that on any day a board meets, up to a third of the members could be missing for one reason or another, and it could be down to nine members attending the meeting which is a small number to be making the decisions.

The owners' representatives are saying that the CEO of the HRI should be restricted to two consecutive terms as this is also proposed for board members. I am always conflicted on this issue and I have been involved in drafting Bills. If such a restriction applies to a chief executive or board members, one finds that sometimes one is forced to get rid of good people. The other side of the story is that if the people in place are bad, as it were, one has a way to get rid of them without having to pay huge compensation. I am conflicted as to which approach is the right one.

Mr. John Weld:

It is a juggling act.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of members serving an eight-year term on a board, many programmes are for three years with the first year involved in getting started, the second year involved in it working and the third years related to finishing it up. In providing for a person to serve an eight-term on taking over as chief executive, are the representatives of the view that the person would have a year or two to build up the position and at the end of the term they will have a year to prepare for leaving it, as it is written in black and white that the person will be out the door at the end of that term? Will the task of the chief executive be a little like that of the President of America, who is fighting elections all the time and not having the time to do any work? I would like to get the representatives' views on that point. If board membership is for a four-year term, two consecutive terms is fairly short, whereas if it was a five-year term, members would serve for ten years. I would be interested to hear their view on that aspect.

The representatives of both groups mentioned the issue of money. The betting Bill does not come under the remit of this committee, rather it comes under the remit of finance committee. There is a need for money to be invested in the industry. It is a massive industry throughout the country and it is one we are particularly good at. We have a good deal of corporate knowledge and experience, and we also have the land. It is a very good native industry but it has got a bad press during the past 20 years. People do not realise how many people depend on it. In the context of realpolitik, what are the representatives' views on funding the industry totally out of an increased betting tax and using part of the revenue that would be derived from it to assist in funding the greyhound industry? Do they envisage that is the way forward on the finance side? There is no point in them saying they want grants for the development of racecourses to be subject to provision and proper facilities unless there is money available to invest in them. I was interested in what they said and I would be like to have more information related to the lack of investment in racecourses in recent years. The representatives seem to indicate that the facilities at racecourse are dilapidated. I do not go to too many racecourses but I must say that Ballinrobe is in great nick.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Pringle.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both groups for their presentations. They have been useful in terms of the Bill. I would agree with the points made about the membership of the board of Horse Racing Ireland, particularly in regard to the stable staff association. All groups and bodies involved in racing should have full representation on the board because that is where the decisions will be made. I agree with the point that lessening the role of employees would be a step backwards. That is an important one. There is merit in seeking to increase the membership on the board of the owners association. That is a positive proposal and we should impress on the Department and the Minister that they should change that make-up of the board to ensure that it is reflective of all those involved.

Regarding the power of Horse Racing Ireland to issue directives, from my reading of the Bill, that excludes the role of the Racing Regulatory Body. While that body is required to consult Horse Racing Ireland, it appears it cannot issue directives enforcing Horse Racing Ireland to do something because the body's role in setting the regulations is excluded from the directive power that Horse Racing Ireland has. I could be wrong in that but that seems to be the position. I am not sure if it is necessary to push that point in terms of legislation but we can examine that further.

The point that was made about the facilities at racecourses is valid. From the perspectives of the stable staff association and the owners association, it is important that racecourses should be up to standard. We should stress the point in our feedback to the Department that the power they have to remove courses should extend to including where the facilities are not up to standard or if it there is not an investment programme in place to improve facilities and make them acceptable to members of staff.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back to the Deputy. I call Deputy Heydon.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the gentlemen for their presentations. I will divide my questions into two groups given that the groups made two presentations. I will direct my questions to the representatives of the owners association first and then direct some question to the stable staff association. I would say to Mr. John Weld and Mr. Aiden Burns that the industry would not work if we did not have owners who invested at the level that they do in ownership.

The point we need to bring back to the powers that be is that this is people's discretionary spend, the after-tax money or profit they have made from whatever enterprise in which they are involved, which they could spend in any area. That money goes directly to employing the stable staff and all the other facets of the industry which as Mr. John Weld said in areas where there are not many other alternatives, as opposed to urban areas. I presume the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners represents owners large and small of the National Hunt and National Flat and perhaps he would indicate the numbers in each category.

I note the points made in respect of the membership of the board. That is something we will have to bear in mind when preparing our report to feed back into the process. We note also his point regarding the term of the CEO in the future. He commented also on proper facilities. Obviously there is quite a disparity between the race tracks. Some have had significant funding while others, such as the Curragh are in need of development. If investment was to be made, where is it most needed from the owners point of view? Both witnesses mentioned facilities but they are both very different. The stable staff facilities are backstage, so to speak, and are very important if one is working a 16 hour day and one is hanging around a stable yard, while the owners' facilities are very different and need to be modern. These are high net worth individuals, many of whom are from abroad and we need to ensure we have the facilities that make them feel as important as they are to us and that they are well looked after.

No doubt the witnesses have had occasion to frequent other countries. How would our facilities for owners compare and how does the treatment of owners compare with that in other countries? The overall package is how we look after the owners and how we make them feel important. Is there some way in which we can improve that?

In regard to the heads of the Bill and the point on the fixtures committee, are there failings in the fixtures system at present? Alternatively, is the system perfect and should it not be touched? What has been the input of the owners into the fixtures programme committee, as referenced? Is Mr. Weld happy that the owners' voice is being heard? Perhaps he could compare the present situation with what is proposed for the future? The witness mentioned the crossover between Horse Racing Ireland and the Turf Club, at the heart of which is the whole area of integrity. I am on record as saying to the Department officials earlier that integrity is something that can potentially be taken for granted because we have it, but when it is lost one does not get it back. We need to be very careful to ensure that any measure that is introduced does not compromise integrity because the good name of our industry is key.

There was a reference to other countries. Perhaps the witnesses would explain their experience of how other countries deal with issues of integrity, those that have a more streamlined and amalgamated approach where integrity and regulation all come under the one head and how they consider that has worked. Perhaps that could be fleshed out a little more.

Outsourcing of administration was also mentioned. I presume that currently all administration is carried out by HRI and the Turf Club.

Mr. Bernard Caldwell said that the 4,000 stable staff members are the lifeblood of the industry. Many of those 4,000 people are constituents of mine as they live around the Curragh area but their commitment goes far beyond the job which is not a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday job. Horses do not know whether it is Saturday or Sunday. Given that the stable staff are so passionate about horses and the equine industry they may be taken advantage of by the industry. While they love the job they do, €9.72 per hour is not huge money.

The issue of funding the horse racing industry was mentioned. While it is not within the remit of this committee to influence the funding mechanism we need to get to a point where the industry is self-financing. It never wanted to depend on the hand-outs of others. Mistakes were made in the past by previous Governments. The reduction in the betting tax from 2% to 1% was a mistake, for which I do not think there was ever any justification. We all know this industry is competing with schools and hospitals for funding at a time of difficult economic conditions, but it has taken the trouble to make its case even though it is a huge employer of more than 16,000 people and has a net worth value of more than €1 billion. It is preferable to bring the industry back to a point where it is self-financing. That is in the interests of everybody including the owners and the stable staff. It is interesting that we have representatives from the two associations appear before the committee as they are at opposite ends of the scale but equally important. I do not say that in a disparaging way. It comprises the front of house high profile owners and the stable staff behind the scenes and encapsulates what the industry is about.

From his point of view, perhaps Mr. Bernard Caldwell would outline where he would like to see an improvement in facilities. I presume some tracks are better than others in respect of stable staff facilities. It is obviously not just about the race day as many stable staff are riding every morning. I note his point about the divide between the turf club and HRI. He also mentioned board representation, that is a consideration we need to take on board. Any sector of this size would feel that its role or representation was diminished. Will he outline how stable staff were represented before 2001 and how the Irish Stable Staff Association has contributed since 2001 as a full member of the board? Does he feel that since 2001 the board has been the perfect system or if it could be changed how he proposes that could be done?

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Heydon has raised some very good questions, most of which he has posed for me. From the point of view of Mr. Bernard Caldwell and Mr. John Weld I too would be interested in being educated on what has happened in the board post-2001. I was lucky enough to be brought up in this industry and have a passion for it. In the Seanad if I mention the racing industry members look at me as if I am a mad person because most issues are about health, medical cards and so on. While there is much discussion here about the closure of post offices in rural Ireland, this industry is keeping every corner of rural Ireland going and will do so in future but we are at a crossroads. It is important to have the representatives appear before the committee and for us to be educated. I have one question for Mr. John Weld which Deputy Martin Heydon asked in a roundabout way. In summarising, the nub of the heads of the Bill is that we all want to modernise racing, to save money and streamline the HRI with the Turf Club but it is all about the integrity of the racing industry. In point three of the summary he states: "Other models, where integrity services are run by the Racing Authority have not always appeared independent." Perhaps he could educate everybody by doing some storytelling for the committee.

I should say to Mr. Bernard Caldwelll, that if I have any say at the end of all these consultations his organisation simply must have a seat on the board, otherwise splitting in three creates a nonsense. I thank witnesses for their presentations.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Lawlor, who is not a member of this committee, is welcome to make a contribution.

Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I welcome this opportunity to speak. I am coming to this debate from the jobs perspective. Both associations appearing before the committee are very important in terms of the jobs perspective. My brother in law, Ray Carroll, is probably a member of the organisation. For many years the Lawlors were always involved in horses, one way or the other. Like Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, I have a passion for this sport and am concerned about where it is going when I see that race tracks are struggling to survive and racehorse owners are struggling to finance the industry. There have been job losses and trainers are in difficulty.

That has a knock-on effect on the Irish Stable StaffAssociation. Does the Bill address the future of the industry? Does it ring-fence finances and identify where they will be directed? How will the industry survive?
Both delegations have been part of the board since 2001 but during that time the industry has become seriously constricted. I am concerned that the Bill does not address any of the issues I outlined and is merely cosmetic. We need to get down to the nub of the industry. Sadly, the legislation does not address the issues, and I would like to hear comments from the delegations on the matter.
In the past year - I asked the Minister about this matter - HRI appointed a person to liaise and generate new owners. Has the initiative been successful? How much involvement has Mr. Weld or his association had with the Minister? An additional three members will be appointed to the board. Earlier someone asked me whether their appointment was just another case of jobs for the boys. Is that true? Should one of the ministerial appointments, according to the Bill as it stands, be given to the Irish Stable Staff Association?Perhaps Mr. Caldwell has a strong view on the matter. I would like to hear the views of the delegations on the matter and on the Bill in general. To my mind, the Bill empowers HRI but does not solve the overall problems in the industry.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Today we are having pre-legislative scrutiny of the heads of a Bill, a new process for us all, rather than debating the legislation on Committee Stage. The process should facilitate a quicker, smoother and less confrontational passage of Bills through both Houses, and points raised here can feed into the publication of the Bill for Second Stage. For the process to be successful, we need a certain amount of goodwill. Obviously not everyone will be happy with the process, but at least solid arguments will be listened to and perhaps addressed before the Bill is finally published.

I call Mr. Weld and Mr. Caldwell to respond to the various questions. Deputy Ó Cuív asked the first question, which relates to both organisations. He wondered if there was a reason for preventing the membership from increasing from 12 to 15. The size of the board is a fundamental point that is related to many of the other issues. Betting tax was the other matter raised by both presentations. Is it all about money and funding the organisation? This is a question that links up with the points made by Deputy Lawlor.

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.

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

I will be quicker.

Mr. John Weld:

He always says that.

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

Deputy Ó Cuív is gone but he asked earlier about how many should be on the board. I know it is a policy to reduce board numbers but I think whatever number it takes to have a good board, that is what one has. The current board contains representatives from the turf club, the owners, the breeders, stable staff, Northern Ireland representatives, the ITBM and the trainers. There is a total of 13 members. All of those groups are completely different. In no way can stable staff be compared to owners or breeders. We are a completely different group. There is no comparison with jockeys who are a different organisation and members of the industry. I think that will be a bit of a disaster if it happens. How many members should the board have? If it takes 12, 13 or another number, that is what we need. Everybody on that board, on which I sit, represents their own areas.

A question was asked about funding from a full betting tax. There is no doubt that the only way that racing can survive in the future is by increasing its betting tax. We have been pushing for that for a long time so ensure that racing continues to survive and be as competitive as it is. Irish horses are sought all over the world. At the moment, the Irish horse is being brought into China which is a huge market that will increase the amount of money coming into this country and bring Chinese owners in. We have owners here from all over the world. The committee should not forget that a number of years ago when things were bad in this country, it was the foreigners who came in, bought up our studs, redeveloped them and made them what they are today along with Coolmore Stud and all of those people. We have some of the best facilities in the world and we need to be able to maintain them. If we drop our standards, there are too many other people out there waiting to get in and it is very important that we keep that up.

Senator Mary Ann O'Brien asked me about the situation before 2001. I was not involved with stable staff before 2001 but I would have been familiar with what was going on in stable yards. Facilities for stable staff were absolutely dreadful in most tracks all over the country because the tracks did not have the money to provide proper shower units, proper toilets and proper canteens. Even the stable yards were antiquated. Nowadays through capital grants provided by the HRI, many stable yards have been improved but a lot of work still needs to be done. This work will be ongoing and, hopefully, over the next number of years, we will see more improvements.

Deputy Lawlor also asked about the betting tax. I reckon that in the past six years, we have lost about 900 stable staff through the recession. That is a lot of people for one industry to lose over that number of years. We definitely need our full seat on the board. I hope the Minister can turn around and say that we can keep it. That is more or less it. The same questions have come up from all of the members. If they wish to ask me any more questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question concerns the industrial services committee. The Department expected stable staff to be members of this committee which would nominate a member to the board. It says that the committee shall represent the interests of jockeys and qualified riders, which is fair enough; persons employed in the horse racing industry; and persons employed directly in the horse racing industry. What do the witnesses understand by "person employed in the horse racing industry"? It could be somebody who does five minutes work every once in a year.

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

There are two separate groups. One is a more unionised group that works within the HRI or the Turf Club. We are altogether separate. We are not a union. We are just an association. Each of those groups-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It says "persons employed in the horse racing industry."

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

That would be us.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But it also says "persons employed directly in the horse racing industry."

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

Those people work within the buildings of-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many are employed directly in the horse racing industry?

Mr. Bernard Caldwell:

Fewer people work within the buildings-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but many people are probably directly employed.

Mr. Paddy Doyle:

There are secretaries and farriers but they are not directly at the coalface, whereas the stable staff are directly at the coalface, dealing with the horses. They are hands-on at the coalface stage. People who are considered to be in the racing industry are secretaries, horse box drivers and other such staff.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be fair to say there are probably as many people employed indirectly as directly?

Mr. Paddy Doyle:

Yes, it would.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was in a trainer’s yard recently and I saw the stable staff, the grooms with the horses, and the riders going out to ride the horses on the gallops. The horse laundry pulled in and there was also a farrier and various ancillary staff. Such people might be self-employed but many people make a good living out of horse racing. There is a combination of direct and indirect employment.

Mr. John Weld:

Each one of those people would have a backroom staff behind them also. They are rarely sole traders. The laundry man has someone doing the laundry as he makes the deliveries.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. We understand the Betting Tax (Amendment) Bill 2013 finished Committee Stage in the Select Sub-Committee on Finance yesterday. I do not have the amended schedule but Report and Final Stages are due to be taken tomorrow. That is probably the reason we are sitting until 8 p.m. There are a number of pieces of legislation.

Today’s business is at the White Paper or pre-legislative stage. The Betting Tax (Amendment) Bill is ahead of this matter and is almost finished in the Dáil. I do not think it will have to go back to the Seanad but it might have to do so. The Seanad might sit next week to finish legislation anyway. The Betting Tax (Amendment) Bill provides for an increase to 2%.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the idea.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is enabling legislation.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is enabling legislation for offline and onshore betting.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of the Bill is to be able to capture all forms of betting that are relevant to an event in this country. The enabling legislation is required and then the rates can be established after that. If one can capture it all, that would bring up the amount of revenue anyway and then if one increases the percentage, one can double it or treble it. That is vitally important. From the point of view of the committee, it is important for the point to be continually made. Some might say the legislation is cosmetic but at least if one structures the HRI properly – board membership and representation will be vital - then one has an entity that can address the industry itself in a proactive way, but one needs money. There are two sides to the equation, no matter what way we look at it. That point has come through loud and clear. Maintaining the integrity is hugely important. We all accept what was said about prize money. The mere fact that smaller races attract larger bets is always a concern.

Apart from briefings from officials, the witnesses before us are the first ones to speak to us about the Bill. The officials said that under head 11 the term used is consultation which means it does not require agreement. The point was raised when we had a briefing with the committee. Deputy Pringle might have the correct interpretation but the matter requires clarification. An impression is given and the situation must be clarified on whether the measure extends to the regulatory body. The regulatory body would consult or inform.

Mr. John Weld:

The reference in the legislation previously was to inform HRI and that has changed to after consultation. It is not a case that they would consult but that legislation can only be enacted after consultation.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very useful that the point is picked up by a stakeholder and articulated at the committee.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does it make a difference?

Mr. John Weld:

I told the committee that if I can confuse it, anyone can.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank witnesses, members and non-members of the committee for attending and making a constructive contribution. We hope the witnesses found it useful to have their say on legislation that is at the heads of Bill stage.