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

I thank the witnesses for their detailed presentations. Our engagement on this legislation thus far has been good. It is the committee's first time dealing with pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill. In my view, this will prove its merits when we come to deal with the more detailed elements of the Bill. We had a particularly good engagement last Tuesday with four different delegations in that there was a healthy and robust debate between the bookmakers and others on particular issues. I concur with the points made by both witnesses today in relation to funding. In my view, there is an element of the industry that tends to paint the bookmakers as the big bad problem. We must find ways to work better with them in terms of their expertise in marketing and so on in this area. There are synergies that can be made.

Mr. Keeling referred in his presentation to the focus on racecourse redevelopment. Perhaps he would update the committee on where we are in terms of redevelopment of the Curragh, which is one of the most important jobs of work in terms of racecourse redevelopment. The Betting (Amendment) Bill is currently before the Dáil. It is not before time. There has been huge frustration about the length of time it has taken to get that Bill to its current Stage. Ms Sharon Byrne of Boylesports mentioned when before the committee recently that there was a great deal of focus on the betting shops. The elephant in the room was the fact that much of the movement in terms of shop closures was the move to online betting. We must ensure we have in place a structure that captures this. We can then discuss issues such as rates and returning the industry to a self-financing position.

I would like now to comment on a couple of points raised in Mr. Kavanagh's presentation. On the fixtures committee, concern was expressed by some of the delegations that have appeared before the committee thus far about the fixtures committee. I would welcome if Mr. Kavanagh could elaborate on how the programmes committee has worked up to now and his view on the impact of what is proposed in this Bill if it goes ahead. Another issue of concern is that Horse Racing Ireland, through necessity, governs or controls a number of racecourses directly and the possible conflict of interest in its having responsibility for racecourses which it owns and manages on a daily basis and privately owned racecourses?

The media rights committee and the importance of it has also received considerable mention. Ms Sharon Byrne of Boylesports mentioned on Tuesday that the bookmaking industry paid €24 million towards the Horse and Greyhound Fund and €30 million in respect of the provision of television services in bookmakers. Often there is so much focus on tax matters that we lose sight of the importance of media rights. Is Mr. Kavanagh happy that the proposed media rights committee will be robust and well placed to ensure the maximisation of a return for the industry, which is extremely important?

Particular sections of the industry are unhappy that they are to lose their representation on the board. For example, stable staff and jockeys have expressed concern at having to share their board membership position. Perhaps Mr. Kavanagh would outline his views on how the board as a representative board has worked to date and say whether he would have a difficulty with the number of representatives on the board being increased from 12 to 15, which would mean everybody would have their own representative? In Mr. Kavanagh's view, would that be unworkable and cause difficulties? It is important in the context of the compilation of our report that we are aware of people's views in this regard. Perhaps allowing everybody representation would not be a bad thing.

Would Mr. Keeling, in his capacity as chairman, envisage a difficulty with that? It might be a better recommendation for us. That is how I am leaning at present. I am interested in hearing the views of the delegates on it.

When the ITBA representatives were here on Tuesday, they mentioned funding and marketing. In Mr. Kavanagh's presentation, he highlighted the importance of marketing and competitiveness. Will he outline what steps have been taken to improve marketing and competitiveness since the publication of the Indecon report?

With regard to the funding for ITM and its very important work, the chairman of the ITBA made a comparison with Dairygold on Tuesday. When Kerry Group relaunched Dairygold, it invested over €1.2 million promoting a product and brand that were extremely well known. Approximately €1 million was invested in ITM. Is that sufficient? Are we getting the best return for it? Is this an area where we could invest more? Could we get more back if we did?

In his presentation, Mr. Kavanagh said the proposed legislation would strengthen governance and transparency. Some concern has been raised over the legislative head on the setting of directives. It is stated HRI can set its own directives if any of the others do not cover what is required. That could be seen as a catch-all that gives full power to the incumbent CEO or board. We must be very cognisant of future-proofing. At a time when there are different individuals involved, the current politicians have moved on and the board members have all changed, the structures will have to be sufficiently robust.

Mr. Kavanagh mentioned the establishment of a new statutory committee to focus on requirements of persons employed in the industry and representing the interests of the board of HRI. Let me ask about the specific issue of stall handlers. This manifested as a problem in Dundalk last year. Have the issues that arose been addressed?

Mr. Kavanagh mentioned in his presentation the Turf Club and funding for integrity services. It has been suggested by some in the industry that if HRI controls the money, that, in itself, could be a problem in regard to integrity services. To be truly independent and have adequate integrity, it is argued, one must have one’s own funding supply. What are the views of the delegates on that? We take integrity for granted. We have integrity in the industry and if we ever lose it we will not get it back. If we lose it, it will be too late to seek redress. It is really important that any initiative we take copperfasten and strengthen the perception of integrity as much as integrity itself. Both are equally important.

Was point-to-point racing mentioned in the Indecon report? Where did that come into the mix? I take the point made by the delegation on head 9. The ITBA raised that here during the week. We will definitely make a recommendation to ensure there are no anomalies in that regard.

I completely agree with the points on funding. We need to return to a point where the industry is self-financing. It never wanted to be in its current position. It employs approximately 16,000 people, as Mr. Kavanagh stated. It used to employ well over 20,000 people. I do not see why we cannot return to that figure. This would result in economic activity in parts of the country where there are very few alternatives. I support the efforts in this regard.