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

I thank the Chair for indulging me again. We have had a fascinating three sessions so far. I welcome the comments made by Mr. Keeling and Mr. Kavanagh, who are representing HRI.

There is to be a consolidation. Given this consolidation, could Mr. Kavanagh outline where the savings will accrue? Deputy Ferris alluded to premises. Will everything operate from one building? What staff will be let go? Obviously, staff costs comprise one of the high associated costs. If there is to be consolidation under the Bill, what will the exact process be?

With regard to head 5, might there be a conflict over the allocation of grants, loans and disbursements to the racecourses, particularly considering that HRI manages and owns four of the racetracks and that 20% of the race meetings are associated with those four racetracks?

Second, can the witnesses outline what subsidiaries of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, they will be managing? This is specifically mentioned in head 5 of the Bill. A consistent theme running through all the presentations thus far is with regard to funding. While everyone has been focused on the betting side, as Deputy Heydon has mentioned, huge funding comes from the media rights. The legislation refers to the exclusivity of the HRI to decide on the media rights. As everyone is aware that some racetracks are much more progressive, what are HRI's views with regard to progressive racetracks that are not under its remit which actually try to sell the product? In the context of the legislation, Mr. Kavanagh might outline exactly what he thinks would be the impact in respect of them trying to sell the product. Mr. Kavanagh might outline exactly what he thinks in this regard.

Sponsorship is a huge part of racing and during his presentation, Mr. Keeling mentioned he had been a sponsor previously. Another area is the Tote and according to reports members have received, the Tote has actually lost money over the past four years. How is this accounted for in the accounts of HRI? Is it right that a sector which generates €50 million in turnover generates no income for the racing industry? This goes back to head 5 of the Bill on managing any subsidiary of HRI and pertains to the capacity of HRI to manage the Tote. One point that stands out for me is that the Tote operated by the greyhound industry makes returns to that industry. However, it also has someone in charge of it who actually is a betting person and is associated with the betting industry. The witnesses should comment on this point. Deputy Heydon mentioned the overreaching part in this legislation, whereby the HRI will have the right to make directives and enforce them on the industry, and I certainly have a concern in this regard. As for the fees that are being collected at present by the Turf Club on the registration side, the Bill proposes this should be managed by HRI. Will HRI return all those fees to the Turf Club? Should the Turf Club be fortunate enough to generate any income itself, will it be taken into account when HRI is making a return to the Turf Club to safeguard the integrity of racing? The most important thing for people is to believe the integrity of racing is of the highest standard. It is important that funding is in place and should not be compromised in any way by what the Turf Club might do to generate income itself.

There are a couple of other matters. In all the presentations, no one has mentioned anything about the customer, be that a betting customer or a punter who goes racing. It is strange that this aspect of the industry is not mentioned in the Bill. Mr. Keeling might comment on whether it is possible that someone who is not an integral part of industry but is part of the industry, in the sense that he or she goes racing and gambles, might be considered for the board.