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

I remind members and witnesses to please turn off their mobile phones. The first session in our examination of the greyhound industry will involve the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Tom Hayes. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials and thank them for appearing before the committee to discuss the greyhound industry in this country. This session will involve members only. I remind them in terms of privilege 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 the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chairman and members. I am delighted to have the opportunity to attend today's committee meeting to discuss this very important industry, namely, the greyhound industry.

It is a sector which merits attention because apart from being a sporting and leisure activity, it is an industry which makes a significant contribution to the Irish economy. In its 2010 report on the sector, Jim Power Economics - Mr. Power is a well known economist - estimated that the Irish greyhound industry employs just over 10,300 people directly and indirectly, that the gross wage bill generated by that employment is €207 million and the tax contribution from that employment is €21 million. Based on a conservative multiplier of 1.5, the Power report estimates that this results in a total economic impact of €279 million in terms of additional spending in the Irish economy.

The report also refers to the rural impact of this activity. The 17 licensed racetracks around the country are widely dispersed geographically, with greyhound owners and activity in every county in the State. Greyhound racing is something that is inextricably linked to rural and farming communities around the country. It is part of the fabric of rural Ireland but also enjoys a strong urban support base.

Bord na gCon is the commercial State body charged with promoting, developing and regulating the greyhound sector. That is a complex task. Bord na gCon employs more than 700 people, including full-time and part-time staff, and has an annual turnover of approximately €40 million. Funds generated from racing are reinvested in the industry through contributions to prize money and grants to various bodies involved in the greyhound racing and breeding sector as well as promotion of greyhound welfare and the regulation of the industry.

The challenge for Bord na gCon is to encourage the development of a commercial greyhound racing and breeding industry, built on a customer focused, high quality entertainment product, which meets the highest international standards of regulation. The work of Bord na gCon since 2008 comes against the background of challenging economic conditions, reduced disposable income in households and lower consumer spending. Against that backdrop, in early 2014 my Department commissioned Indecon economic consultants to prepare a report on certain matters relating to Bord na gCon. Indecon was asked to examine matters relating to governance, finance, regulation and welfare and it reported in July 2014. It identified a number of significant financial and commercial challenges facing the sector and made a number of recommendations in that regard. It also made recommendations in relation to governance, regulation, animal welfare and breeding, which I have broadly accepted.

Implementing the recommendations of the Indecon report is a work in progress. There are challenges, but I know that the board is working diligently to an action plan and that significant progress is being made. It is critical that those involved in the industry have confidence in this process. In that context, I urge the board to consider how it might improve communications to the industry on the implementation of the recommendations of the Indecon report because it is very much in the best interests of both the board and the industry that those involved in the sector have a full appreciation of the progress being made.

I know that the chairman and CEO of Bord na gCon will appear before the committee later today to give a detailed report, but I would like to touch on some of the broad themes and priorities.

Greyhound racing relies on Bord na gCon for the provision of prize money, for financial support for the operation and development of tracks and for a variety of other operations and services, without which the sector could not continue. Putting Bord na gCon on a sound financial footing is a key priority. The context for Bord na gCon’s operation in recent years includes a very difficult economic environment and also the requirement to service bank debt of €22 million. Improving its financial position requires it to take action to reduce its borrowings and improve the commercial viability of its operations. Key recommendations included a plan for asset disposals, the collaboration of race meetings to improve the viability of poorly performing stadiums, the development of new products such as commingling and fixed odds betting opportunities and an exploration of alternative sources of commercial income at each of the stadiums across the country. These are operational matters for Bord na gCon, and, of course, there are no instant solutions. However, progress is being made on all of these fronts.

On asset disposals, Bord na gCon has completed the sale of its former headquarters in Limerick, as recommended in the Indecon report, and is considering the sale of other non-core assets. The board has included Harold’s Cross in its asset disposal plan, in accordance with the recommendations of the Indecon report. I expect any such sale to be subject to a variety of considerations in the final analysis, including the value obtained, the extent to which it can improve the overall financial position of the board and the impact on its ability to develop and promote greyhound racing on a more sustainable basis nationally.

I have been extremely supportive of the board in terms of its finances. In budget 2015 my Department provided an additional €2.8 million in funding for Bord na gCon, bringing its share of the horse and greyhound racing fund to a total of €13.6 million. I am delighted that an additional €1.2 million will be provided in 2016, bringing total Exchequer funding for greyhound racing to €14.8 million. This additional provision has been very well received in the sector. I want to see this funding used to stimulate participation in racing and breeding through the provision of grants for prize money. I would like this incentive to filter through to small races throughout the country and the small trainers who are under such pressure at this time.

I will continue to support the greyhound racing industry in this way. However, the funding provided by the Exchequer is not limitless. I must insist that Bord na gCon takes the necessary steps to improve its commercial outcomes in a way that best serves the interests of the industry and ensures best value for taxpayers’ money. In this regard, significant progress is being made on the development of co-mingling and fixed odds wagering opportunities, including exploitation of alternative commercial opportunities at stadia. Bord na gCon is connecting with consumers through the development of its digital strategy and hospitality services at stadia are being revitalised with new market offerings and admission packages. There are real opportunities, particularly against the background of a strengthening economy, for clubs and organisations across the country to benefit from this.

Indecon made a number of recommendations around the size and composition of the board, some of which will require changes to legislation. In this regard, my Department is working on the heads of a Bill which I hope to bring to Government in this Dáil term. I have already introduced veterinary and legal expertise to the board. All board appointments are now made through the Public Appointments Service and a process is currently under way through that system to fill five board vacancies with people with appropriate expertise in finance, marketing, greyhound industry expertise and a youth role model with experience in other leisure or sports industries. Bord na gCon has also strengthened its risk management and internal audit processes and a review of the effectiveness of board operations is under way.

I want to turn now to regulation. As regulation is central to the reputation of the sector, Indecon made a number of recommendations to strengthen regulatory processes and procedures. A number of firm actions have already taken place and I am determined that Indecon’s recommendations in this area be implemented. From 1 October, the results of any adverse analytical result from a greyhound tested for a prohibited substance will be published on the Bord na gCon website. In the event of such a test, the greyhound will not be permitted to race again until a further test is undertaken, with negative results. This is a strong measure but it is fully warranted because I want to send out the clear message that there is no place in Irish greyhound racing for those using prohibited substances. In addition, the findings of all new cases coming before the controls committee, which adjudicates on any possible breaches of regulation, will be published, as will the reason for its decision. The controls committee operates independently of the board but for the avoidance of any perception to the contrary, I intend to provide in primary legislation that its members should be appointed by the Minister of the day. I will also make explicit provision for penalties in the primary legislation, to which I have already referred, and the question of mandatory sanctions will be considered in that context. Furthermore, in the HRI Bill, which will be brought before the Oireachtas in November, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, will introduce a provision permitting the appointment of persons or classes of persons as authorised officers under the animal remedies legislation.

This provision can provide a basis for off-track inspections at kennels and elsewhere in respect of prohibited substances. This is a very important change. Of course, the field of medication is not static. Technologies move on and it is important that regulators can keep pace with scientific developments. In that context, Bord na gCon has established a scientific committee on doping and medication control with leading experts providing provide advice on an ongoing basis on scientific matters relating to doping and medication control in greyhounds. This committee will review the current list of prohibited or controlled substances - and, where applicable, their associated thresholds or limits - and will advise Bord na gCon on any changes considered necessary.

The five experts who comprise the committee represent the various disciplines of relevance to such a task - animal remedies, canine internal medicine, analytical chemistry and greyhound veterinary practice. Each of the individuals concerned - they were all appointed recently, initially for a three-year term - have relevant experience in the areas mentioned. That experience includes the assessment of veterinary medicines for regulatory approval purposes at both national and European level, the control of such medicines in the field and the sampling and analysis of animals for residues.

In addition to all of this, Bord na gCon commissioned Professor Morris to report on its integrity and control systems. I understand that this report is being considered by the board and I expect it to be published shortly. Naturally, if there are additional recommendations emerging from this exercise, I would expect them to be implemented. I want the greyhound racing sector in Ireland to be synonymous with the highest international standards of regulation. I expect Bord na gCon to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of its systems on an ongoing basis and to make any adjustments necessary. High standards of animal welfare are also a critical part of the reputational dynamic. If we are to attract younger people to the sport and sell our product domestically and internationally, the customer must have confidence that the greyhounds, without which races could not take place, are cared for properly. This requires proactive enforcement and the strict application of effective sanctions. The publication of data on welfare inspections and penalties imposed will also be a deterrent for potential offenders.

I am convinced that, as a rule, those who love greyhounds are extremely concerned for their welfare. The actions of a very small minority who disregard the welfare of their dogs have the potential to damage the reputation of the greyhound sector irreparably, particularly among those whom we are trying to attract as new spectators and participants. Developing a strong welfare culture must be a top priority and the strongest action must be taken against those who would threaten the reputation of this sector by failing to look after their dogs properly. The Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 provides a robust legislative framework for all the necessary action and I know that Bord na gCon is working with other agencies to ensure that the industry in Ireland operates in accordance with the highest welfare standards.

Those who know me know that this is an industry about which I am passionate. I grew up in the middle of greyhound racing country. In commissioning an independent consultant to look at aspects of the industry, my objective was to ensure that the State's framework for regulating and supporting the industry is fit for purpose.

The Indecon report recognises the challenges facing the greyhound industry at a time when there are many alternative leisure sources of entertainment but also lays down a roadmap for improving the sustainability of the sector over time. It is no secret that the public commentary on the sector, even the commentary from within it, is sometimes characterised by dissension and disagreement. Of course, that is a function of people's passion for the sport and I understand that. We can always learn from dissenting voices. However, it is critically important to map a coherent route around the various challenges that face the sector, take decisive action where it is needed and ensure that this great industry continues to make its vital contribution to the economic, social and cultural fabric of both rural and urban Ireland.

This is an industry with great potential to contribute to employment and the economy. We must take any necessary actions to ensure that its full potential is reached. I am determined that. We will do it and in this regard I will be closely monitoring Bord na gCon's progress in implementing the Indecon report. I thank the Chairman and the members for giving me the opportunity to update you. I look forward to your questions. I also look forward to coming back here because, as I stated, this is very much a work in progress and we all have a similar desire to improve the industry.

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

I thank the Minister of State. I invite Senator Ó Domhnaill to speak.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. The Minister of State gave a comprehensive address that touched on many key issues that are of concern to stakeholders within the greyhound industry in Ireland. It is an important industry and I fully agree with the Minister of State's concluding remarks on the industry's potential. It has huge potential not only within the country but internationally. The industry needs to be harnessed and developed but in order to do that, there is a need for robust controls within the industry at every level, from regulation controls - the Minister of State spoke about the drugs issue - down to financial controls. There is a need for regulations, processes and the implementation of clear objectives that are agreed to by all the stakeholders within the industry.

One concern that breeders within the industry have expressed to me is like the analogy that I sometimes use in regard to the Football Association of Ireland and the manager of the Irish soccer team, Martin O'Neill. In that regard, the stakeholders or the breeders are the players. How can one field a team if the players are not coming forward? There is a need to bring everyone together, to improve the communication strategy and to ensure that everyone is listened to, whether or not we agree with their opinion.

I am looking at the situation from the outside. I do not own a greyhound and I have never betted on a greyhound. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the industry. I am looking at it objectively and I believe there is a huge gap at the moment that is creating an undercurrent of difficulty. Whether or not we agree with where some of the commentary is coming from, it is being made so it needs to be addressed. I agree with the Minister of State in that regard. He made an honest contribution on where he sees the industry going. I acknowledge his own determination in trying to resolve some of those issues. This is an industry that has huge potential but it is also one that is receiving healthy benefits from the taxpayer, to the tune of around €175 million in Exchequer transfers under the fund from 2001 up to the end of last year.

As a committee and as Members of the Oireachtas, we have an obligation to scrutinise the workings of that organisation and ascertain whether the money that is being spent represents value for money for the taxpayer.

The fact that the Irish Greyhound Board's turnover has been hugely dependent on the taxpayer in recent years is alarming. I understand that if one goes back to 2006, one sees that the figure was around 17% or 18%. Today it is approaching 36% or so, following the increase in revenue through the budget, through the Minister's good offices, which is bringing direct transfers from the state to the Irish Greyhound Board back in line with the 2007-08 figures. We all speak about the organisation having huge potential. If it can realise that potential, why is the taxpayer bailing it out, in effect, year on year? That is just one issue.

The Minister of State mentioned the Bill he is working on, and he hopes to publish the heads of the Bill shortly. I know it is difficult to say, with the election coming up, but does he envisage a publication date for that? Has the Department set a date for it? Will it be published even before the election?

The Minister of State mentioned the need for improved communication in the industry, as outlined in the Indecon report, which was very comprehensive and touched on a lot of the issues. A lot of the good work that is being done and a lot of the challenges that the sector faces fed into it. Looking at the sector from outside, as a committee member and a Senator, I see that one of the shortcomings is the lack of communication with stakeholders. The IGB has a statutory obligation to liaise with stakeholders in the industry, but that is not happening. Communication channels must be put in place to allow that to happen. I am not suggesting for one moment that that is the Minister's responsibility, but if the taxpayer is providing money, we need to ensure that the IGB, all parts of the sector and all stakeholders, particularly the breeders, have an equal opportunity to decide on the future direction of the greyhound industry in Ireland. On the one hand we have fewer breeders, while on the other we are trying to cultivate an ethos of breeding new dogs. Why leave the current breeders to one side? Should we not take all their views on board? Maybe some of them have been listened to, but not all of them have been listened to.

There is an issue of finances. The IGB is a semi-State organisation. Since the IGB's inception under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, how has its relationship with the Department evolved? Would the Minister say there is a strong relationship between the Department and the IGB? Has it got stronger or weaker? I am not sure whether the Minister wants to answer that, but I will leave the question there, in any event.

What is the Department's view on the board's recommendation to offload the only profit-making track in the country, Harold's Cross, which is generating a revenue surplus-----

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Shelbourne Park makes a profit. There are two.

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

Let the committee member speak without intervention.

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are what he-----

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a member of this committee.

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

Deputy Butler, let the committee member speak. You will get your chance to speak

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is wrong. His facts are wrong.

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

Sorry, Deputy Butler. We run a committee here and you are not a member of it. You will be facilitated later; do not interrupt the committee member again, please.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chairman. I deal with the facts that are presented to me.

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Your facts are wrong.

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

Deputy Butler, refrain. Speak through the Chair.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have scrutinised those facts and I accept them. What is the Department's view on selling the asset that is the Harold's Cross racetrack?

The Minister mentioned the increase in funding, which is bringing it back to 2007-08 levels. Ultimately, every Department has an obligation to provide value for money for the taxpayer for every euro that is allocated through the Exchequer. That is about providing efficiency, effectiveness, economy and equity. What value-for-money audits have been carried out of the money that has been transferred to the IGB under the fund? Has the Department carried out any such audits and, if not, why not?

As for the steps to improve commercial outcomes, this is closely linked to the overall value for money issue because for any organisation to utilise its potential, basically the relationship between efficiency and effectiveness is the realisation of the outcomes in the financial sense. What has been done to realise the potential outcomes, set goals or objectives of this organisation? What has been done and what oversight has taken place from a departmental point of view? If this has not happened, members will have an opportunity to liaise with the Irish Greyhound Board, IGB, and the stakeholders today and can ask some of these questions. I welcome the Minister of State's contribution on the new board appointments through the Public Appointments Service, which is the right way to go. On the five board vacancies, I agree on the need for expertise in finance, marketing, the greyhound industry and a youth role. What about independence and objectivity? Does the Minister believe there is a need for the provision of objectivity and independence in respect of the board? What if there are vested interests within a board such as, for example, if the board is responsible for drug testing at various tracks and the board members also are responsible for the strategy on drug testing and regulation? Is that independent or objective and does that meet the standards as set down under corporate governance in an international sense, as set out by the OECD? I seek the Minister of State's thoughts in this regard. The Minister of State mentioned risk management and the internal and external audits and perhaps the joint committee can talk to the Irish Greyhound Board about that subject.

I will sum up with a point on the drugs issue, which the Minister of State mentioned. The drugs issue, that is, prohibited substances in greyhound racing in Ireland, has been a huge issue. It may be that only a small minority have been involved in drugging dogs for performance and financial gain but it is wrong and the vast majority of breeders would not entertain it. This must be stamped out and the best international standards for testing must be implemented. What is the Department's view on the testing regime that is in place at present? I revert to my previous point on the independence of those who are undertaking such tests. I am more familiar with this issue from the perspective of athletics, whereby athletes are tested by the World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA. The federation concerned, Athletics Ireland, has nothing to do it and the testing is done totally at arm's length. I personally have been tested and am familiar with how it is done. It is far removed from the governing bodies and when questions are being asked, there also is a need to bring such objectivity into this sector. A lot more could be asked but I will leave it at that and there may be an opportunity-----

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

Yes, because we have two more sessions. I should point out we must vacate this room at 5.15 p.m. and consequently, I ask members to try to get to the point.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed presentation, of which I must be complimentary, inasmuch as at last somebody has taken the bull by the horns, for want of a better expression, to try to sort out this ongoing issue, that is, the dissension, disagreement and so forth, as well as the overall message going out and the damage it has done to the industry. It is good to hear the Minister of State is taking this on board and is trying to deal with it. I recognise completely the importance of the employment side of this sector, both in respect of Bord na gCon and the number of people involved in the industry. Given the area from which I come, I am conscious of what this means to the local economy and how it is of benefit to it. There is a large number of greyhound owners and greyhound breeders in the area from which I come and the industry is of fantastic benefit to the economy and to the smaller, weaker sector within the farming community, whose members make their living out of it.

The Minister of State also referred in his presentation to the effects from 2008 onwards, some of which probably are due to the recession and others to the bad publicity associated with the industry. This manifested itself through a small number of people who have given the industry a not-great name overall. Senator Ó Domhnaill made it obvious the way to sort out this issue is through an inclusive process. An inclusive approach will include the Minister of State, obviously, as well as all the sectors within the industry, working together in a collective and transparent way to try to resolve it.

When that happens it will generate confidence from the wider public as well as from people in the industry. As the Minister of State said, the industry has huge potential if it is marketed properly, has the confidence of the public and is utilised properly. There are 17 licensed racetracks around the country which are widely spread geographically. Greyhound racing is linked to the rural communities and is part of the social activity where those tracks are located.

The Minister of State said there is a plan for asset disposals. This is one of the key recommendations in the report and it is for asset disposals. Has the Minister of State looked at potential assets to be disposed of? If so, is he doing it exclusively from a Government point of view or in consultation with the people in the industry?

In regard to the provisions regarding prize money I suggest, given the recession and the decline in prize money, most operators are working at a loss. It is a tribute to the people involved in the sector who continue to work at a loss because of their love of the industry and something must be done to help them. Money put into an industry that has potential, such as the greyhound industry, is money well spent from a Government point of view. It helps the local economy, peripheral areas that are suffering as a consequence, as well as the social side of it and it is a cheap night out for families.

The Minister of State mentioned that the board has completed the sale of its former headquarters in Limerick, as recommended in the Indecon report. Does that include the new racetrack there or is it separate?

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is separate.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is separate. I did not know that.

The Minister of State mentioned that all board appointments are made through the Public Appointments Service and that the Controls Committee operates independent of the board. I would be sceptical of that because he also said that its members should be appointed by the Minister of the day. Perhaps it should be appointed by the Minister of the day after being suggested by an independent body, because it leaves a sense of cronyism if not dealt with in a transparent way. I understand it has to be appointed by the Minister but it should not be a political appointment. I know very credible people in the sector and in the industry who are suspicious of any appointment made by the Minister that does not come from an independent body. I will leave it at that as others want to contribute. I thank the Minister of State for his presentation.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials and thank him for his comprehensive report. As Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill said, his final remarks sum up the whole issue. The contribution the industry makes to rural Ireland, in particular, goes without saying and it would be hugely detrimental if anything happened to it.

The Indecon report which was published a year and a half ago appears to be the blueprint for the future of the whole industry. Has the Minister of State set a target for implementation of all the recommendations by a particular period? If so, is he working towards actions for, say, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 or whatever the case may be?

The Minister of State mentioned the level of debt within Bord na gCon as being €22 million, which is sizeable.

The Minister of State has mentioned the sale of the stadium at Harold's Cross would depend on a number of conditions that would have to be agreed on. What will happen if the stadium is not sold? Indecon has recommended that it forms part of the sales process. I presume the Minister of State expects that all Indecon's recommendations will be implemented. In the event the sale does not proceed and that sizeable debt remains, is there an alternative plan to reduce that level of debt? How will that happen? As the Minister of State said, a debt of €22 million is unsustainable and I agree that nobody could stand over such a debt.

The issues we have discussed today were also discussed last year. There are major legacy issues going back many years which were not been addressed previously but need to be addressed now. The Minister of State mentioned many of them, including the level of debt. He also mentioned new legislation. Senator Ó Domhnaill asked him about the timescale involved but I know the Minister of State cannot state a particular time. Will the legislation target specific areas? The Minister of State said there seemed to be a difficulty with communications in the set-up. Will the legislation target that particular area? Will it improve the communications strategy? Will it require that a consultation process takes place on an ongoing basis?

The Minister of State rightly pointed out that the extra funding this year and last year was welcomed by the industry. Will that extra funding be conditional on going in a certain direction? I think the Minister of State mentioned the extra funding going towards prize money, although he did not specifically say all the funding will go towards prize money. Perhaps I missed the point he made. Is the funding earmarked for use in specific areas?

There has not been major capital investment in some of the grounds or stadia in the recent past due to the economic climate. Are there plans over the next period of time to upgrade the facilities that were not upgraded in recent times?

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and acknowledge that he took up his current portfolio when the greyhound industry was a basket case, and there is no saying otherwise. He took on this portfolio, grasped the nettle and initiated the Indecon report. The turnover of the tote was €50 million in 2006 but it dropped to €20 million in 2013. Bord na gCon has put forward its strategic plan and predicted that there will be a turnover of €28 million by 2017, which is an increase of 34%. Based on the figures so far this year and the premise that there will be a turnaround, can the Minister of State confirm whether Bord na gCon can achieve such an increase?

I wish to reflect on the comments the Minister of State made about communication. He stated that in this context, he would urge the board to consider how it might improve communications to the industry in relation to the implementation of Indecon. I must acknowledge that he has communicated with, and met, the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation on a number of occasions at my request. In some cases, the message communicated to him at these meetings seems to be lost in transit before it reaches the board and there seems to be no closing of the communications circle. The Minister of State is very strong on this issue, so I would like him to comment on how best we can improve communications. This is not about blaming anybody but about improving the communications system in place and informing people about the improvements and, in many cases, the upgrades that have taken place, which the Minister of State outlined.

I welcome the fact the Minister of State has taken a number of measures.

The veterinary and legal expertise on the board are very important. I recognise that the Morris report is being examined but when will we see the board's response to the report? That is dragging on and it is important that people in the industry see that action needs to be, and will be taken, based on the Morris report. I recognise that the results of tests for prohibited substances have been published on the Bord na gCon website but we get this information piecemeal and in order for the industry to improve all this information must come out. The Minister of State cannot micro manage the industry. That is not his job. It is his job to take an overall view, appraise the situation and deal with it as time moves on and as we see progress. The stark fact is that Indecon has recommended 27 improvements and changes. How many has the board implemented? The Minister of State told me months ago that he was pushing for extra Exchequer funding for 2016. He said here today: "I want to see this funding used to stimulate participation in racing and breeding through the provision of grants for prize money, and I would like to see this incentive filter through to small as well as larger races." That is critical to the future of the industry. Will the Minister of State elaborate on how he can ensure that happens in 2016, through his role, charged with providing the funding, which he has done, providing €14.8 million? A great deal of improvement is needed, including legislation, which the Minister of State has alluded to. We need to see it on the Statute Book. I look forward to his bringing the heads of the Bill to this committee and the Dáil and Seanad.

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

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed presentation. I acknowledge his leading role in commissioning the Indecon report which has looked into many concerns with a view to improving the industry which, like the horse racing industry, employs many people in areas where there is very little other economic activity. With over 10,000 people employed in the sector it is an industry, not just a sport. That is why it is important that it falls within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am happy that change has been made.

Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny of the Greyhound Industry (Amendment) Bill 2014 in this committee? The Minister of State mentioned the explicit provision for penalties in primary legislation. Will that be part of the Bill? Is that how the penalties will be introduced?

The Minister of State touched on most of the big issues in his address, from regulation to welfare to funding, which is a very significant issue. Will he comment on some of the key statistics too, the number of active owners, the greyhounds mated and litters? There has been a significant drop in percentages between 2006 and 2013. The recession had a big impact on this industry, as it did on the horse racing industry, and many people who could not afford to remain in the industry left. A decrease of 42% in active owners is not sustainable and is very serious, in addition to the 34% decrease in greyhounds mated and a 36% decrease in litters. The Minister of State has outlined several actions that have taken place already. What expectation does he have that the board will carry out further actions?

As one who owns a leg of a dog which had great success at the Cox Cup in Newbridge this year, I know the importance of the Harold’s Cross stadium to those in the industry. Does the Minister of State see any alternative to it while acknowledging that there is significant debt which will have to be addressed?

Is it an option to save the track at Harold's Cross? Would the Minister of State have a view on how we would eliminate the shortfall of €22 million as the debt could put the industry at risk?

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their presence. The challenge for Bord na gCon is to encourage the development of a commercial racing and breeding greyhound industry. I have always said that we have underinvested in getting the message out that the facilities at some greyhound tracks are as good as four or five star hotels. We need to advertise the fine facilities at the greyhound stadiums. We have not put in sufficient resources to market the facilities to people in the community to organisations that could host events in the stadium or even to consider running events to fund local clubs or charities. I am on record that we should have at least two people in each province going out and selling the facilities of the greyhound industry to charities that can host events at the tracks. I would like to see a charity event every Saturday night at my local track in Mullingar, because this would bring in significant turnover. There is no reason that we cannot go out and sell it.

In regard to the shortfall of €21 million and the proposal to dispose of Harold's Cross, as a breeder who has been racing greyhounds all my life, I would not be in favour of selling Harold's Cross, but unfortunately this is looking like the option. Could we consider the alternative of the online betting levy as a means of paying off the debt? Everybody has mobile telephones and online betting is huge with the yield from the levy rising. At present there is a 1% levy on online betting and would we consider servicing the debt from that source?

I welcome the additional €1.2 million being provided this year. I am delighted to see that it is being put into prize money. The drop in the number of breeders and owners was due to the size of the prize money. The inputs are expensive with certificates, passports and microchips. I would like to see the reintroduction of the breeding scheme that was in place ten years ago, where the owner of the bitch who ran in ten races was given £150 and if she ran a further ten races, the owner received another £150. If that bitch who ran in the races produced a litter of pups, the breeder got £300 once the litter hit the ground, which created successful breeding. We should look at that again.

A digital strategy is one of the recommendations of the report. We should look at what they do in Australia where greyhound racing is doing very well. We see the significant prize money. I acknowledge that they are eight dog races. However with the introduction of their digital system, one can watch a greyhound race in every pub, club or on the telephone. We have to examine that option if we want the sport to move on. We can do that

I welcome the trial Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Service, BAGS, races in the three tracks in the past two or three months. They have been a great success in one or two tracks, which will bring in extra revenue. We should be looking at the BAGS meetings as a way of raising revenue.

Dog doping is an issue. An that needs to be looked at in greater depth is the qualifying trials that allows dogs to race. We should be testing dogs that are getting ready to qualify to race, as this is where doping occurs. We should have a team of testers when there are qualifying trials on the tracks.

We should get people to look at that.

As has been said, there are 10,500 people employed by the greyhound industry. Some €44 million was put into Irish horse racing last year. The taxpayers put in a lot of money but they also get a lot of value through the revenue that is returned. Greyhound racing is huge in rural areas. Even in County Meath, every second person has a greyhound. I welcome the work the Minister of State has done over the past years and hope he keeps it up.

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

There are some comments and questions for the Minister of State. We will try to finish in ten minutes if we can, as we have two other groups coming in.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee members for their constructive contributions. There is a common theme through much of what they have said. The board will be in later today and maybe the specifics should be kept for the board members. I will address a few general things about funding.

Senator Ó Domhnaill asked if the taxpayer will continue to support the industry. We have to remember that this is a hugely important industry, not only for Shelbourne Park or Harold's Cross in Dublin but right across the country. Deputy Ferris alluded to its impact in County Kerry. There are a lot of greyhounds there, particularly in north Kerry.

I was not in office six months when I requested that the Department get Indecon to look at the area. I was born and bred in a part of the country where a lot of the dogs are. I know the impact and have listened to the difficulties. I was an hour in the job and the first phone call I got was from a greyhound person who wanted me to do something about the industry. I thought long and hard about it and put a process in place. Indecon delivered a very professional report.

It is great to have the opportunity to discuss the detail of its implementation today. As I said, it takes time to implement all the recommendations. Someone asked about the timeline for doing this. Some of the recommendations have been implemented and more are in process. All are being dealt with by the board. The board accepted the report, as did I and we moved on from there. That is why we were able to go to the Government in a time of difficult economic circumstances and look for extra money. We put the case that the issues with the overhanging debt were being dealt with and they were dealt with in the report. That is why the funding was given and will be given into the future.

Senator Landy asked about the prize money and the funding. The case we made to the Department of Finance was that it should be given back to the greyhound trainers, owners and breeders. In fairness to Bord na gCon, before we got last week's funding, it already had a breeders' incentive scheme at consultation level. That will be in place from next year, as Deputy Butler mentioned. The increase in the prize funding is to sustain these people. There is no doubt that they are losing money and that whole financial area needs to be regulated.

On the sale of Harold's Cross and the assets, the debt, which is at €22 million, is not sustainable into the future. To keep paying that debt means taking the interest that should be going to the breeders and people on the ground, who Deputy Ferris talked about and who are suffering hardship. We have to try to support them.

When Indecon looked at the issue, the asset that could be disposed of was Harold's Cross. That is the procedure that is in place. I do not know yet whether planning permission can be obtained and await the board's work in progress on that. There is no point in selling it for €2 million or €3 million. However, if it comes to a situation where it is worth €10 million or €12 million, that would cut the debt in half and put the industry in a good place into the future. That would be a sensible thing to do. We await the outcome of that process.

Several people have said to me "you cannot sell Harold's Cross" and I have asked them to give me an alternative. I am still waiting for that alternative two years later and it has not come. If there was an alternative the sale might not have to happen. The fact of the matter is that the board's debt is not sustainable into the future. I certainly do not see any other asset disposal. There are two stadiums in Dublin. The horse industry had three racecourses some years ago and today it has one very good stadium which is attracting huge numbers of people. There is an argument for going with that model and doing the same thing with Shelbourne Park.

Communications and consulting with the greyhound owners and breeders have occupied a huge amount of time for me. Senator Landy, in particular, has on many occasions requested meetings - as have others in this room - with the greyhound owners and breeders in their different branches around the country. I would love to see a united voice from the greyhound industry but I have not got it.

At the last meeting Senator Landy organised, I said I would love to set up a communications structure on a three or four-monthly basis to give out the information. There are different viewpoints. People in the greyhound business are very divided. Let us call a spade a spade. People will say one thing in my ear at the dogs in Limerick and in the other ear I will hear something different from somebody else. That is what I hear all the time. If we had a coherent voice and a structure in place, we would be able to work through it. That would be really good for the industry.

Members asked about when the legislation is coming; the control committee; and the vision between the board and the control committee. I understand from officials that it is taking a while, but the heads of the Bill should be published before Christmas. It will then take on a life of its own, as members know, as it will have to go on to Second Stage. I hope it will happen as soon as possible. We need to get new skills onto the board and to extend the size of the board.

The recommendation of Indecon is to have the control committee completely separate and nominated by me or by the Minister. I would return to Deputy Ferris's comment that it is essential for its members to be specialists in the area. That is the proposal we have. When we bring in that legislation, whatever happens we want to make it effective and totally independent. The real problem is that it is not seen as being independent.

It is stand-alone and totally independent even if that requires further regulation in the future, and it may well do so. People have asked me to set up a new structure, but that is a costly way of going about it. We will see that as we move forward.

It is very important in general. We have all come through a desperately difficult period of time. Referring back to the communications and the people involved, I am anxious to make that work much better. Regarding the drugs issue and the allegations I hear from time to time about various people, we must be as transparent and open as possible. I have communicated that to the board. I wish to work with the board. One of the members, probably Senator Ó Domhnaill, asked if there is much co-operation between the Department and the board. There is, and that continues. It is important that there is more co-operation into the future. The board members meet on a regular basis and I attend as many as I can. In fact, once a year I try to attend a board meeting to listen to what the board has to say, sit in on some of its decisions and give my input on what I would want from the industry. All of that structure is there for better communications and to build the industry. Undoubtedly, there are challenges and all of the members have acknowledged that. They can talk to the board members about those challenges and the way they are implemented when they appear before the committee later.

We must work together for this industry. The opportunities that exist are huge. Last Saturday night at Limerick track there was a GAA club there from County Clare. Next week or the week after there is an event in Limerick from County Tipperary. Three weeks ago I attended one in Thurles. One could hardly move because it was jammed with young people. It was a fund-raiser for the late Eddie Connolly. These are fantastic events. The potential is enormous, but it is being left behind due to other issues. All in all, Indecon has provided us with a roadmap. We as legislators can change, and we want to change the openness. I would like to work more with the committee to try to improve this. The committee has a role to play because of its input, such as through the contributions today, regarding improving the communications. There is a great opportunity for the future.

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

Thank you. I will bring this session to a conclusion. The committee was anxious to address this issue but we were waiting for the heads of the Bill to be prepared so we could discuss them. However, we were given to understand that it might not happen until next year so we decided to go ahead. The Minister might not be able to stay but we will be talking to two other stakeholders and the board members in the two next sessions. The transcripts of that will be available. However, there are a few key points which are quite simple and easy to identify. We hope that some of the recommendations we will make in a preliminary report would feed into the drafting of the heads of the Bill. That would be helpful because it would save us from having to do this all over again and we could go straight to Committee Stage in the interests of expediting the legislation.

All matters have been mentioned. I thank all the members and non-members of the committee for their insights and valued contributions. I might appear to be a hard taskmaster, but it is in the interests of conducting the meeting in a productive, constructive fashion. The Minister and his officials have been given a great deal of information. We will have more from the stakeholders.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am unable to stay for the rest of the meeting.

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

I understand.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have other engagements on my timetable. The officials will get whatever feedback there is from the committee.

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

When we have heard from the other two groups we will draft a preliminary list of findings. It will be a report on our hearings with, hopefully, some recommendations that will be helpful in informing the drafting of the Bill. It is probably not a bad idea that we do this now instead of when the Bill is drafted. We will suspend for a couple of minutes.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly, Chairman, with regard to the proposed legislation and assuming that there is no election in advance of it, will the committee have the opportunity of pre-legislative scrutiny?

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

That was the plan.

For everybody's information, we took a decision that if it was not going to be drafted for pre-legislative scrutiny until the new year, then because of an election, even on the last possible date an election could be held, we would not get a chance to have a proper look at it. If it is published before Christmas, we will act on it before Christmas.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nothing will be rushed through. It will go through the normal pre-legislative procedures.

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

The exercise we are undertaking will help us. I thank the Minister of State and his officials.

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

I welcome, from the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, Ms Brigid Frank, chairperson, Mr. Edward Gus Ryan, honorary vice-president, Mr. Tony Walsh, delegate for Mullingar Greyhound Owners and Breeders Association, GOBA, and Ms Brenda Powderly, secretary, and thank them for appearing before the committee to discuss the greyhound racing industry in Ireland.

Before we begin, I must bring to our guests' attention that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members of the committee have already been reminded of their responsibilities in this regard.

I invite Ms Frank to make her opening statement.

Ms Brigid Frank:

We are grateful for this opportunity - after two and a half years waiting - to voice our concerns. I will outline a history of our federation and our feelings on this issue.

The Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, IGOBF, has been in existence for over 40 years and is the controlling body of all regional greyhound owners and breeders associations, GOBAs. It is subject to a written constitution and is administered by a democratically-elected national committee consisting of officers and representatives from each of the affiliated associations.

The primary objectives of the federation are: to co-ordinate the efforts of all associations; to safeguard the rights of the members and to promote their best interests in so far as they relate to the breeding, rearing, maintaining, training, racing, coursing and selling of greyhounds; to make effective representations and contributions to the Irish Greyhound Board, IGB, the Irish Coursing Club, ICC, and the Minister with responsibility for the Irish greyhound industry; and to ensure the IGB board of directors, track management and the ICC do not act to the detriment of the members of GOBAs. Dáil Éireann has recognised the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation as a valuable asset to the Irish greyhound industry by including it on the register of nominating bodies under the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts 1947 to 1972. In other words, we are the watchdogs for the industry.

Greyhounds hold several unique distinctions among their canine brethren. Not only are they the oldest breed of purebred dogs, dating back to the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, they are also the fastest dogs on earth. Greyhounds can run as fast as 45 mph and can average 30 mph for a distance of up to a mile. Those of us who have chosen greyhound racing as a hobby have created a massive industry with employment for many people, be it in the dog food business, veterinarian medicine, veterinary supplies, pet supplies, ministerial portfolios, greyhound board personnel, track management and maintenance, regulatory committees and so forth. Greyhound racing, in its initial stages, was run by people like us without pay and we still do a great deal of that now. My pension has taken a fierce hit due to the cost.

This is a huge tree of industry and it has many branches. A large number of those branches were allowed to grow wild and untamed instead of being clipped and cut from time to time to allow the base the nourishment it needs to withstand the weight at the top. This tree of industry will not weather the storm under its top-heavy branches. There is currently a serious threat to our hobby and the industry to which it has given rise. We are here today because we requested a meeting with the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine two and a half years ago to voice our concerns about the massive decline in our industry and the fact that the board, which is a semi-State body, was set up as a regulatory entity but has since diversified and, in so doing, has created the massive debt that is now overshadowing the industry.

Our three main concerns are the non-implementation of rules and regulations, the financial situation and drug issues. Drug issues have been a major concern for us for the past four years and we have submitted proposals to the board to address this problem. We have a zero-tolerance policy on drugs. Breeding is also a major issue and we believe that no dogs equals no jobs equals no industry.

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

I thank Ms Frank. I presume her colleagues are also available to answer questions.

Ms Brigid Frank:

Yes, at any time.

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

Ms Frank has been before the committee in the past so she will understand the format.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives from federation for taking the time to attend. Their members are the volunteers in the industry and they are the key stakeholders because without breeders one does not have an industry. This is an important issue and one which our committee can play a part in resolving. The concerns expressed by the federation are at the cutting edge of moving the sector forward, developing it and bringing new life to it. How do we do that? What are the representatives' views on the current structure of the greyhound sector in Ireland, including the relationship between the stakeholders, namely, the Department, the Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation? Is the relationship a structured one? Are there, for example, monthly or quarterly meetings involving the Irish Greyhound Board and the federation? If not, why?

What input has the federation been asked for on the question of the improved financial performance of the organisation? The Indecon report has now been published. It is an excellent document and contains excellent recommendations but, ultimately, those recommendations and the objectives behind them will only prove fruitful if there is stakeholder input, a fact recognised by Indecon in its points about communication. Has communication improved since the publication of the report? If an organisation, be it a company, a State body or a semi-State entity, does not have good communications, it is very difficult to move things forward.

Deputy Heydon mentioned the decline in breeders over the past ten years or so, which has been stark. How can that be changed? Is there any way the drop of some 42.5% in breeding in that period can be arrested or reversed? Can we entice new breeders into the industry? Can the current breeders improve things? Do the breeders feel they are being given adequate support?

On the financial status of the organisation, in our discussion with the Minister we heard about an inherited debt of €22 million as a result of bad investment decisions, which is having a very negative impact on the current operations of the greyhound industry in Ireland. One proposal to tackle it is the disposal of assets such as Harold's Cross race track. Is that a good idea? Do the witnesses have any alternative suggestions? Have they been asked to bring forward any alternative suggestions?

What impact is the drugs issue having on greyhound breeding and on the sector in general? Are our tests up to the required standard? A presentation by the Minister in the Seanad, some 18 months ago, outlined that the Limerick laboratory facility was using the Australian model in testing for stanozolol. However, it was only able to test for water-based stanozolol and not oil-based stanozolol. That would allow individuals who are inclined to drug their dogs to circumvent the testing system by using oil-based stanozolol products to improve the performance of their dogs. I believe there is a new laboratory in Newmarket in England which can test for oil-based stanozolol.

A control committee was put in place in the IGB following the recommendations of the Dalton report in 2005 or 2006. Has the federation, an organisation elected by breeders, been asked for its views on the drug-testing system? Drugs cast a shadow over the greyhound industry in Ireland and would cast a shadow over any sport. Other sports have to face the challenge of dealing with drugs in the most robust manner possible. Is that the case here? Is the approach robust enough to meet the challenge and tackle those who flout the rules?

Witnesses spoke about the stadia and attendances and reference was made to the television opportunities that might arise. What level of engagement has taken place around increasing capacity at stadia and on television rights for the sector? Has there been any collaboration on these matters? Do the witnesses have any suggestions of what we could propose, as a committee, to improve communications? What would be sufficient to improve communications and how could we go about it? The industry is too important to let slip and slide. We have to improve communications because if one is not talking to one's stakeholders how can one go forward?

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives of the federation for their presentation. They say that No. 2 in their list of primary objectives is to make effective representation and contributions to the Irish Greyhound Board, the Irish Coursing Club and the Minister with responsibility for the Irish greyhound industry. How effective has that been? Have they had ample access to the Minister and the various organisations for the purposes of making effective representation? The witnesses outlined their three main concerns, one of which was the non-implementation of rules and regulations. How can this be improved so as to meet the expectations and demands which they have?

I assume that the decline of the financial situation from 2006 and 2007 right through to the present is the reason for the 42.5% decline in the breeding sector. The drugs issue was mentioned in the Minister's presentation. Adverse analytical results from any greyhounds that are tested will be published on the Bord na gCon website. How effective is that going to be? Will it have any effect whatsoever? If the results are just published on the website, what difference will that make? Will it have any real effect? In regard to not permitting the dog to run until it is tested again, is the dog stopped from running because he has been drugged? It is hard to comprehend what will happen.

The Minister said that the controls committee would operate absolutely independently of the board and that he intends to introduce primary legislation stating that the members of the committee should be appointed by the Minister of the day. Do the witnesses believe that the Minister having the sole power to appoint people is the right way to go? Ms Frank stated: "This tree of industry will not weather the storm under its top-heavy branches." Could the federation elaborate on that? Am I correct in assuming that it is the structures that are top-heavy rather than everything from the bottom up?

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

I thank the federation for its submission. Sometimes we get submissions that are pages and pages long; there is a lot of fluff in them and it is hard to work out what information is in them. In the case of the federation's submission, I want the federation to expand a bit on some of the points, particularly in relation to its three main concerns. I would like to hear some practical examples of the non-implementation of the rules and regulations and what work the federation has been doing on the drugs issues. What response has it been getting, if any, in relation to dealing with those issues? Does the federation think that the proposed legislation will address any of those concerns to its satisfaction? The briefing notes mention the decline of the industry in the UK. I would be interested to know just what impact that is having on the federation.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the group from the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation. I want to acknowledge at the outset that the federation is indeed the watchdog of the industry. It is important to say that. Every organisation, industry or business needs a watchdog. Indeed, we have ombudsmen and women to do that nationally. They watch and mark Government Departments.

It is fair to acknowledge that there is a healthy uneasiness between the association and Bord na gCon. That is only right, because if everyone was sitting cosily at the fire together, none of the issues that need to be addressed would be addressed. That is the essence of any industry - in this case the greyhound industry - that is working well, with the different elements operating well together. That should happen, and it is for the betterment of the industry and for the betterment of the welfare of greyhounds.

The Minister referred to the fact that I had facilitated a number of meetings with the federation. At one of the meetings, it was put to the federation that the Minister would be prepared to meet the organisation quarterly if it was agreeable. There is an opportunity now in the proposed legislation to put such meetings on a statutory basis. That happens with other organisations: for example, the councillors' association meets the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Governmenton a statutory basis. It is set out in legislation that they will meet annually. What are the federation's views on that? Also, it might like to respond to the point that various views are coming from the organisation. I know of only one view that is coming from the organisation, which is the one that the federation gives me as the national umbrella group - the overarching group for the organisation.

I would like the federation to put on the record its response to that, because it is important. The last thing we want is the view being given that there are four or five different organisations. There are regional structures and branches and other structures at the sub-tier level, but the federation is one organisation. That is important and we must put that on the record today.

I will comment on the appropriateness of today's meeting. Other arrangements were made, but coming here today with Bord na gCon and the Minister is better. It allows everybody to hear everybody else's contribution, which we could not have done if we had stayed with the original date of 6 October, when we would not have had the Minister giving what I would call a progress report on what is happening following the Indecon report. That is extremely important, and it is appropriate that we have done things in this way.

Senator Ó Domhnaill and Deputy Ferris addressed the issue of communications. I will put it to the federation squarely: please tell us how we could improve communications with the board and the Department. It is important that things are out in the open. Communications are a two-way street. If can communications can be improved, a lot of the issues that are hanging around will be dealt with more quickly and in a better and more professional way.

Following meetings that I have had with the Minister, I acknowledge that the chief executive officer met the federation on a number of occasions. However, the federation's wish is for a meeting with the board, not just the CEO, and maybe another official and the chairman. How would it be more beneficial to the federation to meet with the full board? What benefit would that have for the industry? All my comments are in the interests of the betterment of the industry.

The new Bill will be an opportunity over the next couple of months. What can we put into the Bill that will improve the role of the federation? We can at least endeavour to put reasonable proposals in the Bill. That is extremely important.

I am getting down to the nitty gritty, but what is the federation's view on the change to the process for catering at the tracks? I would also like the federation's comments on Irish dog racing being made available in bookies' shops. Will that be of any benefit to the industry? Will bookies take it on? Will there be a proper book on it? Will it happen at all?

My final question is on the report by Professor Tim Morris, which is with the board. The board will come forward with its findings imminently, I understand. What are the federation's expectations of the result of that process? "Zero tolerance" is its mantra. What is that in reality? We hear of zero tolerance in athletics and lot of other areas in life. What does the federation believe zero tolerance is, and how will it work for the industry?

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation. I have a couple of brief questions that follow on from other members' questions. The federation says - and nobody debates this - that it is the industry's watchdog. However, a number of other organisations around the country would argue that they are also watchdogs. Does the federation represent all the owners and breeders in the country?

We have heard a lot from the Minister about the Indecon report, and it has come up in a lot of the discussion so far. Was the federation asked to provide input, or did it give any input to the Indecon report? Did it accept the report's 27 recommendations from start to finish? The Minister acknowledged that the Indecon report would form the basis of the Bill that is coming down the track in the next number of months. There are a lot of recommendations regarding drug testing and finance, which the federation mentions as well.

The federation has summarised its issues into three specific points - the non–implementation of rules and regulations, the financial situation and the drugs issue.

Regarding the financial situation, and I think my colleague Senator Ó Domhnaill may have spoken of this earlier, one of the key recommendations in the Indecon report is asset disposal and Harold’s Cross is obviously the main issue there. The Minister said he has asked different organisations and subsidiaries of the business to come up with alternatives in alleviating the €22 million deficit. Did the Minister ask the federation this question? Did the Minister ask the federation to come up with different proposals and, if so, what are these proposals and when does the federation intend putting them on the table for discussion?

I will now turn to the drug issue. Does the federation believe there is a massive drug issue in the industry? Does it have evidence of a drugs issue and what does it propose could be done to make the industry a better place? Everybody here wants to achieve one thing; a better greyhound industry where it will be better for spectators, owners and breeders, with everyone pulling together. In order for that to happen there needs to be unity of purpose to achieve the common goal. What, in the federation's view, is the best way of doing that?

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

I thank the representatives for coming to this committee today. As I am down in the pecking order I will try to avoid repetition in the points I will cover.

At the start of the presentation the federation stated it has been in existence for over 40 years and that it is a controlling body of all greyhound owners' and breeders' associations. Can the witness indicate to the committee how many associations there are? The Minister of State spoke of a division in the industry and that the consolidation of representative groups would be useful. Does the Federation have a view on whether this proposal could be useful or not? Does the federation believe that existing and proposed measures by Bord na gCon - suggested in the strategic plan and the Indecon report - are sufficient to counteract the trend in figures of dog numbers, mating numbers and active owners? They present one key set of very worrying figures. Is the plan, from the strategic plan and the Indecon report, sufficient?

What is the federation's view on recent changes to the organisational structure, in response to the publication of the Indecon report, and has it improved the accountability and transparency at Bord na gCon? If it has not improved accountability, what does the federation think is required to make that happen? What regulatory issues remain outstanding to be addressed in terms of track ratings and other regulatory issues?

Bord na gCon commented previously on supports to the industry in the form of breeders’ payments and trainers’ incentives and that these schemes had not yielded the anticipated increase in greyhound pools. At the time, Bord na gCon invited views as to whether redirecting these moneys to other areas and rewarding a different aspect of participation in the industry would have greater long-term benefits, particularly in targeting the major drop-off in owners and how to address that. There had been two approaches; towards owners who had never been involved in the industry and towards owners with a previous connection with the industry but who had probably lapsed somewhat. What are the federation's views on the current incentive scheme proposals and what does it believe is an optimal approach to address these issues in the future? I presume the witness would concur that the owner figures are worrying, so what potential changes could be made there?

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives from the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation. Ms Frank referred to greyhound racing as a "hobby". I suppose that in times of recession, hobbies can be dropped. The fact that some treat greyhound racing as a hobby may be why there are fewer breeders and even fewer people participating in the sport. Can Ms Frank indicate how many owners are represented on Bord na gCon? Ms Frank also referred to greyhound racing as:

This is a huge tree of industry and it has many branches. A large number of those branches were allowed to grow wild and untamed instead of being clipped and cut from time to time to allow the base the nourishment it needs to withstand the weight at the top.

Is she speaking of just one branch? If not, will she outline to the committee the branches that grew wild, that were not curtailed and that were not properly governed?

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

If that is all the questions, I will allow Mr. Ryan to respond first.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

I thank the Chairman. A lot of questions were asked. If I neglect to answer any of them, perhaps the Chairman will bring that fact to my attention.

The Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation is recognised by the Oireachtas. We are included on the register of nominating bodies for the Seanad. All greyhound owners are not members of the federation, which is their choice. The federation represents the owners affiliated to it but we also have the national interest at heart. All of us here today are volunteers, we do not get a penny from anyone and we never requested it. We would like to see the industry continue for another 100 years after we are all gone but it is our opinion that, unfortunately, it will not continue. If something radical is not done, it will be gone a lot quicker than that.

Reference was made by Senator Ó Domhnaill to the drugs issue, which is probably one of the most relevant matters with which we deal. The Senator asked why people are walking away from the industry. It is because they no longer have any confidence in it. If I was a new owner starting out, I would be gone out the door. However, I love the 99% of the people in the industry who are great individuals. They see that when the genuine owner runs his or her dog, he or she wants to run the dog on a level playing field, with no drugs involved. This is why the federation’s policy on drugs is zero tolerance, and I mean zero. The federation held a very productive meeting with Professor Tim Morris. He asked about the federation’s position on drugs and we told him it is one of zero tolerance. He asked us if a dog required medication could it be given and we said "No. If a dog is on medication, it should not be running". I am astounded and shattered that we have an organisation such as Bord na gCon, responsible for the running of the greyhound industry, which does not have a zero-tolerance policy in respect of drug use in the sport. I find it amazing that we are the owners of the dogs and we have zero tolerance in this regard but that Bord na gCon does not.

I will outline to the committee an instance from five or six years ago when a small-scale greyhound trainer who is a friend of mine had a dog which tested positive for procaine. He explained his case and that he thought it might have come from the meat he used to feed the dog. He lost the €3,000 prize money and was fined. That was tough luck. If you do the crime, you pay the fine. I am amazed that in the past two years three high-profile classic race-winning trainers' dogs have produced positive tests for different samples – two for procaine and one for morphine. What happened in this regard? A tolerance level or threshold was suddenly introduced in respect of procaine and now those owners are not guilty at all. What message would this send to the greyhound owner I knew or to anyone at this meeting other than that there is one law for the rich and another for the small fellow?

Members will see how we arrived at our position on drugs. We will not be satisfied until every drug cheat is put out the door. I am passionate about the drugs issue because I need a level playing pitch to take on those individuals. If I have a dog that is good enough I want him to be beaten by a dog that is clean, nothing more.

As far as I am concerned rules and regulations mean nothing to Bord na gCon. The rules are only for the people who do not count. We had an issue with track distances and only Bord na gCon could come up with the remedy. When we appeared before the committee on a previous occasion we put our case to the Minister of State who said in response that he could see no logical reason why our request to Bord na gCon could not be met.

Bord na gCon had all the tracks in the country measured and it was found that tracks had different distances. In Kilkenny the track was 529 yards and the track in Thurles was almost 533 yards. Dogs running on these tracks would have had an advantage on dogs running in Shelbourne Park because their times were recorded over those distances and not over 525 yards. We asked that in order to level the playing pitch, the proper distances would be put down on the dog's identify card and also entered on the computer, which could adjust for grading purposes, or alternatively move the finishing line or the traps. None of the three options was taken up. One would not give the reply we got to a child. They said they would rank the tracks. Why rank the tracks when one could solve our issue with a stroke of a pen and it would cost no money?

Our confidence in Bord na gCon was shattered when it could not comply with three basic principles. Trainers were given a €10 allowance for presenting a dog. Even though my dog was presented, I got nothing. The ordinary individual who trains his own dog get nothing. Where is the fairness in that? We suggested that the allowance be either given to everybody or to nobody. This request was also turned down.

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

We have 45 minutes. I ask Mr. Ryan to keep moving through the issues as we are under time pressure.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

Let me repeat that we want any dog that is found to have drugs to be suspended immediately. The dog should be allowed to race again after a certain time once Bord na gCon states he is clean. We do not want these dogs, be it a dog or a bitch going to stud. That is the only deterrent that will stop drugs being given to dogs. We do not want those dogs to be allowed to stand at stud.

We agree with the suggestion that all results are now to be published in the Sporting Pressa month after, which is a good thing. We do not believe that the control committee is independent. It is not mentioned in the legislation and it is Bord na gCon who pays the members. That could not be constituted as being independent. As far as I know they are not answerable to anyone. Bord na gCon gives no reason for its decisions but that is due to be changed, which is welcome.

We welcomed the announcement by Bord na gCon on the last occasion its representatives appeared before the committee that this would go ahead. We had been trying to secure the change for about three or four years. In England the British Horseracing Authority disqualified the Queen's horse instantaneously after a positive drugs test and it did not make any difference that it was the result of eating contaminated feed. We have no similar measure in place here. We should have. Regardless of how a substance gets into a dog, it might be the result of a mistake, but the dog should be disqualified. This is a black and white issue - once there is a trace of drugs, the dog should be disqualified.

The financial position of Bord na gCon is dire. We thought the debt was higher than €22 million and only for the intervention of the Government, it would have gone down the tubes a long time ago. Bord na gCon has a new chief executive, but the lady in question only carries out the instructions of the board. Board members should be responsible for answering questions because the chief executive is only the bearer of bad news. The first action of the newly appointed chief executive was to cut prize money by 20%. That is one of the reasons owners walked away. A prize of €200 was cut by 20%. As a result, a dog would have to win 13 graded races in a year to pay for itself. Some dogs would not even get to run 13 times, never mind win every one of its races.

I have given the facts for the reasons people are getting out of dog racing. It is a loss maker. It is not the number of breeders one needs to increase but the number of owners. An owner will buy dogs from a breeder if they are available. The breeder can breed his or her bitch and sell the pups to seven or eight people. It is the owner who is paying the piper and owners are walking away from the industry faster than anything.

Senator Denis Landy asked a number of questions. On catering facilities, while it is a great idea in theory, I have experience of taking over the bar at a racetrack. I found at the end of the year, having done all the sums, that we were worse off because we had to pay all of the staff. The surprising aspect of taking over the catering end of the industry is that it is fine when one is getting the profits, but if it goes belly up, one also has to pay. I wish those involved well. It may work, but I do not know, as there is no guaranteed income for anybody.

Bookmakers in Ireland will not take a bet on a race at any other meeting except in Shelbourne Park greyhound stadium where there is open racing. They do not trust the product we are producing. Again, I hope I am wrong, but I do not think streaming will be the saviour of the industry. We need to save the industry first and foremost.

Everybody has a view of what should be done at Harold's Cross. If the racetrack was sold in the morning, would it solve the problem? The answer is no for the simple reason that we have 16 to 17 tracks throughout the country, each one of which, with the exception of one and perhaps a second, is losing money. When the money realised from the sale of Harold's Cross is paid to the bank, one will still be in a bind.

A root and branch review has to be undertaken for all the other tracks to establish what has to be done and they will all have to be made to pay for themselves. If somebody had a shop in town and I told them that they are on O'Connell Street and only open for two days a week, what will they do for the other five days? We have a part-time business being run on a full-time basis. To spend €20 million on Limerick Greyhound Stadium and to have it open for two nights a week after spending that amount of money is a disgrace. I was in favour of it and I still think it can be turned around, believe it or not. I hope and pray that it can be turned around. I hope I have answered the questions.

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

There were a couple of questions. Does the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation have any members on the IGB?

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

No, it does not.

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

It has no members on the IGB.

Ms Brigid Frank:

No. We have absolutely none but we have suggested that we should have and we have been suggesting it for quite some time.

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

The Minister of State suggested here earlier about including quarterly meetings on a statutory basis. Do you agree with that?

Ms Brigid Frank:

Absolutely.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

We were in agreement with him the last time.

Ms Brigid Frank:

Yes, total agreement.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

I have one final point on that. We would certainly be in agreement with that but the big problem is that Bord na gCon says it is in consultation. Our opinion of its consultation is that it makes the decisions and then tells us about them.

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

To be clear on this, we were pleasantly surprised to hear today that the heads of the Bill will be available before Christmas. The reason we moved now was because we had to-----

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

We are delighted. We are very appreciative of getting-----

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

There is a lot of material to deal with, as the witnesses can gather. The purpose of the exercise here is to allow us to feed into the process of the drafting of that Bill. Have I missed a question?

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Morris report. What is the expectation of the Morris report?

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

In the Morris report, it was said we were like Paisley, although it was meant as a joke. When it was suggested there might be an element of it we said "No". We are strictly against drugs and we will not tolerate them.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions. Returning to the role of the watchdog, everybody accepts that the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation is the watchdog. How many affiliated members are there and is there a cost of affiliation?

Ms Brigid Frank:

They are associations. There are eight associations.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

The associations are affiliated.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many owners and breeders are there in the country?

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

I cannot say. I would not have an idea.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Approximately.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

At the moment-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many members are there?

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

I will answer that if I can. In 2007, there were 16,000 owners; there are now 7,000. There are 9,000 gone.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question is how many of that 7,000 does the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation represent.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

Anyone who wants to join our association.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many are there?

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

We have the Mullingar association, the Kerry association-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are looking for numbers.

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

If the witness cannot get them, can he-----

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

We would have to find out how many members each of the-----

Ms Brigid Frank:

Of those associations.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

-----associations has and we are not privy to that.

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

Each association the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation represents. It is a mother organisation, in other words.

Ms Brigid Frank:

Yes.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

We are a national organisation. We are not a local organisation.

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

The Deputy can ask one more question.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We talked about the financial situation with Harold's Cross. What is the alternative?

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

Senator O'Neill.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question was not fully answered. On Mr. Ryan's metaphor of the branches of the tree, what branches does he mean?

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

The reason that was mentioned-----

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

There are a number of questions there now.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

Yes, to answer the question about the branches of the tree. First, all the cuts seem to be at the bottom. If there is anything to be cut, the first to be cut are the owners. To my knowledge, in the last three years there have been three to four high-profile people hired in the head office of Bord na gCon. They did not come cheaply. I do not dispute whether they are worth it or not. That is immaterial. The point about it is that if there are cuts, they should be made at the top and not at the bottom. That is why owners are being lost.

Ms Brigid Frank:

The owners are being lost. The breeding stock is being lost because it has become too expensive to have a greyhound. It is as simple as that.

We have figures there, just for information. Ms Powderly will read them.

Ms Brenda Powderly:

We did a survey a little while ago and the title we gave it was "Owning a Greyhound in 2015 is a Liability". As a result of the 20% cut to prize money, a greyhound must win, as Mr. Ryan said, 13 races a year. I will not go through all the examples. The first example we have here is of an A1- A2 greyhound, which is a decent greyhound, that wins €250 in prize money at Shelbourne Park. Of that money, 10%, or €25, goes to the trainer and 2%, or €5, goes to retired greyhounds. The trainer then charges the owner for transporting the dog to the track. There is also an entry fee. The owner must pay his own admission, even though he is coming in to see his dog run. There is also the average weekly training fee. When that is all put together, the trainer comes out with €163 and the owner comes out with €60. That is an A1- A2, which is a good dog.

Ms Brigid Frank:

If it is an owner-trained dog and the owner goes to Shelbourne Park, because of the expense involved in going there, he will actually come out with nothing.

Ms Brenda Powderly:

Yes, the further down the grade one goes.

Ms Brigid Frank:

A trainer is paid by the owner to train his dog and is paid for the expense of going to Shelbourne yet, for example, his next door neighbour goes with his own dog and it costs him to go and he gets nothing out of it. If he wins he might get some little bit but if he loses he has all the expenses of going there and nothing at the end of it. It is a very unfair situation and it should never have arisen. If one is looking for a reason as to why dog owners go out of business, then this is one. If one watches people going into the track and there is a trainer on one side and an owner on the other side with two dogs, the trainer gets his €8 or €10 back for bringing the dog in. He is paid the expenses of getting to the track but the owner beside him with his two dogs pays his entry fee and his expenses. That does not make sense.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The trainer is paid-----

Ms Brigid Frank:

By the owner.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, to bring the dog to the track. Is that not a personal agreement between an owner and a trainer? That is nothing to do with Bord na gCon, is it?

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

No. That is quite correct.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a personal agreement.

Ms Brigid Frank:

Of course it is.

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

I wish we could get the finer details here.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to clarify that it is a personal agreement.

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

I will allow one further question. Is Deputy Deering's question relevant?

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The first question I asked was on the Indecon report.

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

I am waiting for that response. That includes Harold's Cross.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The second part is that I still do not know the number of owners or breeders the organisation represents. Is every owner or breeder affiliated to the organisation? Is that how it works?

Ms Brigid Frank:

No.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there an affiliation then, as such?

Ms Brigid Frank:

Yes, there is.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

No-----

Ms Brigid Frank:

There is an affiliation.

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

There should be one answer and witnesses should address their remarks through the Chair. We need to get some structure on this because I am under pressure with regard to time. I will put the two questions to Ms Frank, who is the chairperson.

Ms Brigid Frank:

We have eight affiliate GOBAs throughout the country. Each of those pays a fee to the federation. Those that do not pay the fee are not affiliated. There are owners and breeders associations that refuse to pay it. If they refuse to pay, they are not part of it and that is it. We can only represent those that are.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question is how many have paid the fee?

Ms Brigid Frank:

It is paid by the association.

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

The point was made by Ms Powderly earlier that they would have to go back to the GOBAs around the country to find out how many paid up members they have before they can assimilate the information. The last question is on Indecon.

Mr. Tony Walsh:

Can I come in here for one second?

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

Very quickly.

Mr. Tony Walsh:

I am chairman of the Mullingar branch and we have 130 members.

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

That is fine. That gives us an idea. There are seven others. The last question and answer are on Indecon and Harold's Cross.

Mr. Edward Gus Ryan:

We are in favour of Indecon. We partook in it and had a big input into it. There were many people at it. We are in favour of the Indecon report. We are not in favour of closing tracks. Harold's Cross may not be the only track.

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

What about my earlier question regarding the Minister's comments about division in the industry and suggestions about consolidation? What is the federation's view?

Ms Brigid Frank:

What does the Deputy mean by consolidation?

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

I refer to the fact that there are eight different breeder and owner organisations.

Ms Brigid Frank:

We would be totally in favour of that.

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

Does Ms Frank see merit in trying to achieve unity in the industry?

Ms Brigid Frank:

Absolutely, I most certainly do. While I appreciate our new chief executive officer to be fair to her, we find that we meet the CEO but we do not meet the board members and that is the problem. I would be totally in agreement with anything that would bring all the groups together.

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

That answers Senator's Landy question about whether it would be preferable to meet the board as opposed to just the CEO.

Ms Brenda Powderly:

Our vice-chairperson, Mr. Michael O'Keeffe, unfortunately, could not be with us today. He is also chairman of Dublin Greyhound Owners and Breeders Association. He asked if I could read a short contribution into the record.

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

It can be read into the record but it must be done quickly.

Ms Brenda Powderly:

It is in connection with Harolds Cross:

Harolds Cross is one of the top greyhound tracks in the country. To suggest closing this facility makes absolutely no sense at all. In fact, the figures for the first quarter in Harolds Cross indicate an increase of 22%. A lot of charities, football clubs and GAA clubs will suffer too, as they will no longer be able to hold charity nights to help raise funds to keep their respective clubs going. Harolds Cross has raised millions of euro over the years for these people - a huge contribution to the economy. Harolds Cross is the only Dublin owners track. Everybody thinks Dublin has two tracks and, therefore, it does not need to have two, but the fact is Shelbourne Park is located in Dublin but this track is the Irish greyhound stadium for all top class greyhounds and currently does not facilitate the lower class of greyhound that is running at Harolds Cross. I would also like to point out that Dublin is not the only county with two tracks. Cork also has two, Curraheen and Youghal, and one of these tracks is allegedly losing money. Tipperary also has two trackers, Thurles and Clonmel, both of which, I am led to believe, are losing money. As stated at the outset, the suggestion to close the facility at Harolds Cross makes no sense at all.

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

In fairness to the Minister in his absence, he asked for alternative suggestions and, therefore, we need to see if we can come up with a form of dialogue if that is to be the case but we will not promise that we will end up with that. I thank everyone for their contributions. While there are reasons, which were explained in correspondence, this process did not take place such as the PAC hearings, which deterred us from engaging in it, there was never an unwillingness on the part of any committee member or Oireachtas Member to have the industry fully discussed in an open forum. I hope the witnesses accept that and that we facilitated their request for an earlier slot in order that people can return home. The IGB will appear before us with the benefit of hearing the contributions during the previous two sessions and can prepare some responses to them. I thank everyone very much.

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

This is our final session. I welcome Mr. Phil Meaney, Irish Greyhound Board; Ms Geraldine Larkin, chief executive officer; Mr. Mike Murnane, chief financial officer; and Mr. Colm Gaynor, board member. I thank them for appearing before the committee to discuss issues relating to the greyhound industry.

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

I understand there will be two presentations. I invite Mr. Meaney to make his opening statement, to be followed by Ms Larkin.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I believe we are tight on time.

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

Approximately half an hour, stretched.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I have concerns. While the federation made a tremendous contribution, there were a few blatant inaccuracies and I am concerned that we could leave here today without the record being set straight.

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

As I pointed out when our session with them concluded, the IGB has had the benefit of hearing everybody's contribution and Mr. Meaney has the opportunity to address these inaccuracies.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I would like that opportunity, although not for any personal reason. I do not want to see the industry in any way damaged.

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

This is an open forum. With due regard to privilege, everybody is allowed to comment. If Mr. Meaney feels something is inaccurate or incorrect, he is entitled to put his version of events on the public record. He is free to do that once it does not impinge on privilege, which, I am sure, it will not.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

My colleagues and I did not have the opportunity to discuss this but they may have other points they wish to raise. However, there are three or four points that I, as IGB chairman, need to put on record.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend this meeting. The Irish greyhound industry is in the middle of the most significant period of change in its history. The need for and the scale of change required has been articulated not just by the Irish Greyhound Board but through the Indecon report which was commissioned by the Minister and was the most comprehensive review ever undertaken of the work of the board and the state of the industry. Much of our work since we last appeared before the committee has been around implementation of the Indecon report's 27 recommendations, many of which we have fully met, with significant progress having been made on the remaining recommendations. Our chief executive will deal later with some of the detail of that implementation programme.

We have had a few difficult trading years recently, notably in 2013 and 2014. The reasons for the outturns in these years are multifaceted and we can deal with them in more detail later. However, one of the fundamental causes for this is the cumulative consequence of deep cost cutting within the organisation, which has affected investment in our facilities and the marketing of our product. Ours is a cash business. By this I mean we generate sufficient cash flow to meet our operational needs on a day to day basis. Our challenge is to generate additional income to pay down significant legacy debt. In recent years, meeting that challenge has been difficult. The IGB stadium business must be viewed in the context of general economic conditions, the reduction in consumer disposable income, the reduction in the number of greyhound owners and trainers, the reduction in advertising, a reduced contribution from restaurant and general admission and in food and beverage packages. We also had a commercial strategy which needed to be more aggressive and dynamic.

In 2014, the board took significant steps to improve commercial performance through a new strategy and more appropriate levels of funding. While there will always be a time lag in the impact of the actions to reinvigorate the greyhound racing product, the benefits of the new strategy are beginning to show for 2015. To date attendances are up, track losses at IGB stadia are down and gate and concession fee income is up. Stadium branding and all marketing materials have been developed and updated and the tote brand has been updated to fit with the design of the stadium branding. There is a strong digital marketing dimension to all of our commercial work and all stadia now have their own web presence, which is linked to gogreyhoundracing.ie.

In what has been a very significant step, IGB has taken over all the food and beverage operations within its stadia. These operations are now fully integrated in terms of planning and consistency of business objectives. Food and beverage is now a key driver of future attendance and income growth. Acquiring control of this area has allowed us far more flexibility in shaping our stadium offers. It facilitates the hosting of events, such as IGB award nights, in-house and the commercial exploitation of our stadia through the hosting of events in the future. Our capacity with regard to food and beverage was well demonstrated on 19 September when 2,500 people dined on derby night, on which night food and beverage operations were carried on in parallel in five other stadia. The profits generated through the new food and beverage model will be retained in the business.

As indicated to the committee last year, new income streams have been targeted. The investment in new technical infrastructure in 2014 has allowed us to better serve potential betting partners and with additional live pictures from selected tracks we have been able to grow the basic IGB website-App offering, with significant financial outturns. In 2014, a contract was signed with William Hills and Corals, which will position IGB live-streaming pictures in front of around four million online users. All infrastructural works has been carried out by IGB and the project is being tested by end users. Live betting is expected to start later this month. A new fixed odds project and a TV offering to off course bookmakers are well advanced, reflecting a continuing commitment to new income streams and the internationalisation of the Irish greyhound racing product. Additionally, a number of American co-mingling contracts have resulted in betting from this source commencing on the Irish Tote.

Under macro financial headings, our bank position remains largely unchanged at €22.4 million. Notwithstanding the financial challenges of the past number of years, the bank position has not deteriorated. In fact, this year IGB has commenced capital repayments to reduce its overall debt by in excess of €1 million. We have made solid progress on addressing the issues around IGB’s defined benefit pension scheme and will shortly commence staff communications on this issue.

There has been much work done to address other challenges. What this industry needs to do in the first instance is restore its raw materials. The key constituent of this industry is greyhounds. Without a healthy quantum of dogs, we will have less racing, fewer quality races and a reduced export dimension to our industry. The restoration of dog numbers through increased ownership and trainer numbers is not just desirable but imperative. We recently issued a consultation paper to the industry on the issues to be faced and we hope that stakeholders will join with us in formulating incentives to drive ownership.

Members of the committee will have noted that there has been a significant ramping up of regulation recently. Amendments to legislation allowing publication of adverse findings on the use of prohibited substances and severe sanctions against the owners and trainers of dogs who test positive for these substances represent very radical change. This is just one of a series of initiatives to be undertaken by the board to enhance the integrity of racing.

Overall, the greyhound industry is going through radical regeneration and change. We are in a more confident place than we were 12 months ago. The Irish Greyhound Board welcomes its additional allocation of €1.2 million from the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund, as announced in the recent budget. The contribution from the fund has been substantially increased for the second year in a row and represents very good news for the industry. The Indecon report pointed to the need for further investment to create the basis for a sustainable industry into the future. The additional moneys announced in last week’s budget will be targeted directly at the industry, through significant increases in prize money and the development of other supports.

We still have a series of challenges to address. Extremely high levels of inherited debt have inhibited our capacity to implement many of the things we would wish to do. The rapidly changing commercial environment, the reduction in dog numbers and the ongoing management of a whole range of legacy issues have all impacted the industry. These are issues with which any board will be faced. They will not disappear when the next board is constituted. These issues cannot be magicked away but will have to be worked at incrementally and, often painfully, over years to come. These are long-haul challenges that are not amenable to a short-term fix. This is not always recognised by industry critics of the Irish Greyhound Board. As chairman, it is my experience that many of those who are the most vocal in calling for change are, in fact, the most resistant to it. The board is charged with the overall management of the industry and its strategic direction and although it will be as engaged as it can be, it cannot reasonably be expected to micro-manage every individual issue within the industry and in each location around the country.

IGB has a commercial remit but as members will be aware there are many dimensions to the greyhound industry. It is variously a sport, a leisure business, a domestic Tote business and an international wagering business. It is a community-based activity that has a place beyond the exclusively commercial. Balancing this with commercial imperatives will continue to be a dilemma for the board and its single shareholder, the State, and by extension, Members of the Oireachtas. There is an interdependency between all of the elements of our industry which is not always apparent to those unfamiliar with it. It would be my wish that all stakeholders work closely together to meet the challenges we face against the backdrop of an improving economy.

I am sure members will wish to deal in more detail with these issues and I am happy to respond to any questions they may have.

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

Thank you, Mr. Meaney. I now invite Ms Geraldine Larkin to make her opening statement.

Ms Geraldine Larkin:

This time last year I indicated to the committee that the Irish Greyhound Board had submitted a detailed timelined response to the Indecon report.

As the members of the committee are aware, the Indecon report reviewed the work of the board under four main headings - governance, finance, regulation and animal welfare. The 27 recommendations in it by and large followed those themes. Many of the recommendations have been implemented and considerable progress has been made on many others, although, as the Minister of State said, the full implementation of some will require primary legislation.

To give members a sense of the urgency the Irish Greyhound Board, IGB, attached to the implementation of the Indecon report, it is useful to quickly run through some of the flagship items which the board has addressed. Indecon referenced risk management within the board as a critical deficit, a point borne out by the Comptroller and Auditor General review of the Limerick project. The IGB has expanded its risk management committee to include its chief executive officer and all the senior executive team. This has ensured that all aspects of the IGB’s operations are reflected in risk management policy. There is greater board and audit committee involvement in the risk register, which is reviewed quarterly by the audit committee. Additionally, critical risks are assessed at every board meeting. Also, all staff have a means of reporting risks to an appropriate line manager and beyond. As committed to, the board has undergone governance training and a review of the effectiveness of the board is ongoing and will be completed by year end. On completion of this review, the existing code of governance will be further reviewed and amended, if necessary. In the area of audit management, there is enhanced reporting by the audit committee and greater visibility for the role of the audit committee within the organisation. The audit committee has a schedule of meetings and audit projects for the year with close-out meetings arranged with the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Indecon was critical of organisational structures within the IGB and the under-resourcing of internal capacity which is required for the IGB to function properly. An organisational review has been undertaken and, although not fully concluded, implementation of its findings have already commenced in respect of the provision of Tote services. A corporate unit is being put in place which will address all governance, freedom of information and other legislative compliance.

With reference to Indecon, the new public appointments process which is in place for all State and semi-State boards will also affect the composition of the IGB board.

It is important to state again that Indecon, while accepting the very real financial, business and other difficulties it faced, was of the view that the greyhound industry had a viable future if it followed the path laid out in the report for all its stakeholders. In a sense, Indecon offered an analysis which in many respects was ad idemwith the board’s perspective and it also offered a clear template as we move forward.

I said last year that if this industry was to survive and prosper, it would require tough decisions, ongoing assessment of the business model, the development of new income streams and an openness to new approaches right across the sector. It is no secret that the full implications of some of those requirements are not to everyone’s liking nor was it ever likely that this would be the case. However, the board has pressing commercial realities to deal with and cannot shy away from them. In the past year, new banking facilities have been completed, pension proposals are at an advanced stage and will shortly go to member communication, the asset disposal strategy has commenced, including the disposal of Harold’s Cross, calibration of racing has been undertaken, alternative sources of income realised at our stadia together with new Tote income streams are launching or at trial.

Key performance indicators have issued to all stadia, as previously outlined to this committee. Measurement of performance based on these criteria will form the basis for the allocation of resources to tracks in the future. Again, I am aware that this is a controversial area, as is asset disposal, but the board is determined to break down any notion that support in perpetuity to any track is a given, regardless of how that track is managed or performs.

The Chairman referred to new income streams, largely based on the streaming of racing to an international and digital audience. We are also trying to improve commercial income at our stadia. By way of example, the Jumping in the City programme undertaken in collaboration with Horse Sport Ireland held in Limerick, Cork and Dublin, was very successful.

Increased marketing spend has enabled investment in marketing to the tour operator and incentive markets. We have increased our presence at a number of UK, Irish and European trade fairs and all of this activity should yield dividends based on the booking cycles of these companies from next year onwards.

In addition to a complete overhaul of our branding, digital and advertising strategies, we have completely reformed our food and beverage services. We have taken over responsibility for its direction and operation.

Food offerings are central to marketing campaigns and the flexibility derived from the changes allows us to respond to market demands, create offers at different price points and ensure consistency of quality. The commercial value of this into the future will be very significant.

The IGB has been successful in attracting high profile sponsors and the implementation of the new digital and marketing strategy will help to further refine our offer to sponsors. The economic upturn will also be of help.

Regulation has always been fraught for greyhound industries worldwide. We have made significant progress in aligning with best international practice and the highest standards of compliance in racing regulation and integrity. The use of new statutory instruments to strengthen our regulatory controls announced just a few weeks ago is a clear demonstration of the path the board is going down. Those who breach the regulations now know that they will be faced with publication of adverse findings from test results on their greyhounds which, in turn, will be banned from racing. This is a major step forward.

The IGB supports mandatory penalties for a range of offences, but, as mentioned, this will require amending primary legislation. In the interim, the IGB has highlighted repeat offenders to the control committee and also sought and achieved increased penalties in the form of increased monetary fines and testing orders. We have reviewed and compared sanctions across national and international greyhound and horse racing jurisdictions and also invited stakeholders to submit their views. What will emerge, we hope, is a consensus which will allow us to develop a unified approach within the industry to cover all rule breaches and the sanctions to be imposed.

The IGB has established a scientific committee on doping and medication control to advise the board on the rapidly evolving worlds of doping and medication control in greyhounds. This committee will take into account the relevant recommendations made in the Morris report on anti-doping and medication control which is before the regulation committee of the board.

On animal welfare, incidents of greyhound cruelty are investigated by the IGB and sanctions recommended against all those found to be in breach of the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011. Members may be aware that last June the IGB secured its first successful prosecution in the District Court under the Act when fines of €2,500 and costs of €1,500 were imposed for a failure to comply with a welfare notice issued by the board. In addition, following investigations by the IGB, the Irish Coursing Club served fixed payment notices on a number of individuals for breaches of the Act. Collaboration between the IGB and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has resulted in the revocation of the licence of an EU transporter and his banning from the industry by the IGB. With the continued financial support of the IGB, greyhounds will continue to be rehomed through the Retired Greyhound Trust and animal rescue services. The IGB is committed to publishing data for the numbers of welfare inspections and the penalties imposed on the welfare section within the resource centre on the IGB website and also in the sporting press on a regular basis.

I hope this whistlestop tour through the Indecon report indicates the high level of activity engaged in the board in regard to the reforms which anyone with a knowledge of the greyhound industry realises must be put in place. The past few years have been very difficult for all those involved in the industry. My ambition is to drive forward an industry model that is fit for purpose, sustainable and capable of supporting owners, trainers and all stakeholders into the future.

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

I thank Ms Larkin. I will have to restrict each contribution to three minutes. We have requested an extension of the time allocated for the meeting, but I do not think it will be granted.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be helpful if there was an extension as we want to engage in some toing and froing on this issue, if possible.

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

It is outside my hands.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, but if would be good if a request could be made. I will, however, cut to chase.

The chief executive officer and board members are very welcome. As I did, they would have listened to some of the very valid contributions of the owners and breeders. They are the stakeholders who are not being engaged with by the board. We have heard that point being made clearly today. I ask the chairman of the board to indicate why that is happening. I also ask him why his initial comments were defensive.

Surely, if he is chairman of the Irish Greyhound Board, he should be proactive and not defensive. That is the first role of a chairman. Why did that happen?

In regard to Mr. Meaney's contribution on the performance of the organisation improving and his confidence in this regard, of course, it is improving but the only area where the performance is improving is in terms of income from the taxpayer, in particular the recent budget increase. The Minister's intervention means €285,000 per week will be available to the IGB next year from the Irish taxpayer. That is where the performance is improving. I do not see performance improvements in any other area, unless I am missing figures that are available to me.

There are many issues here and it appears to be a minefield. Members should not be here asking questions that should already have been answered through engagement with the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, which appeared before the committee earlier today. Surely any organisation that is fit for purpose or any board of directors that is performing its duties from a governance point of view would deal with this. The Cadbury report in the UK referred to governance in three areas - accountability, openness and transparency. I put it to Mr. Meaney that there seems to be a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency and a lack of openness in regard to the workings of the IGB. The fundamental principles of governance are lacking. As a result, there is a full and comprehensive breakdown in communication with the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation. That is why we are in this situation.

The new CEO, Geraldine Larkin, is doing her utmost. She deserves the full support of the board and of the Oireachtas in trying to regain the confidence in an industry where that confidence is down the drain. We have issues around drugs, around artificial insemination and around illegal practices involving semen, where the IGB's legal advice from its own solicitors in 2014 was to deal with the issue because it was putting the organisation at risk of litigation down the road. What has been done? In Mr. Meaney's role as chairman, has he protected the organisation from potential litigation concerning the illegal of use of semen? If he has not, I put it to him that the shortcomings are putting the IGB and, by extension, the taxpayer at risk.

There are questions around the financial viability of Mr. Meaney's organisation. Without the bailout by the taxpayer, the IGB would be insolvent, and its reliance on the taxpayer cannot be overemphasised. Therefore, we need to find some solution to this communication crux. While I am not attacking Mr. Meaney, I am raising the question that, in his role as chairman, would he not consider he should be engaging more proactively with the breeders? That is simple and foremost. Can he devise a strategy to do that? If not, I would put it to him that his position is untenable. We need to get this show back on the road for the sake of the taxpayer, given the exposure in regard to debt, which is inherited but is still there and not being dealt with. The only proposal I see coming from the IGB is the sale of a potentially viable asset. Is there no other solution?

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to be associated with a lot of what Senator Ó Domhnaill has said. This whole debacle, which has been ongoing for a considerable length of time, is a contributing factor in the position in which the greyhound industry now finds itself. Mr. Meaney said there has been an improvement and that €1 million has been paid off the debt. In fact, the IGB got €1.2 million from the State. Is that part of paying off the debt? If so, that is very misleading and does nothing to counter the strong points that have been made.

Mr. Meaney said the IGB has taken over all the food and beverage operations within its stadia and that this is a significant step. Again, the success or otherwise of that will be determined by the attendances.

There is a credibility factor. Mr. Meaney said that attendances have improved in 2015, that gate income is up and that concession fee income is up. That might be as a result of the turnaround, particularly in the summer period. In any event, in my county there is a fairly substantial increase in attendance relating to festivals. However, that is not going to work for every stadium and only certain stadia will be able to benefit.

What about the marketing of the entire industry? A part of marketing is reaching out to organisations that will use the facility and another part is giving confidence to breeders and dog owners. Part of that confidence is that they would have a decent income and not be at a loss at every single event, which appears to be the case. I would like Mr. Meaney to address that when he responds.

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

I thank the board members for their presentation. There seems to be a lack of communication between the board and the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation. I would like to hear how that will be addressed in the future in order to improve that relationship.

Mr. Meaney said the IGB has taken over catering services within the stadia. How much will that contribute to improving the financial situation and are additional costs involved in taking that over? If this has been taken over, I presume it had been outsourced at some stage. There was a turnover of €3 million in 2006. How much of that was profit to the board in that year and how does Mr. Meaney see it growing in the future? This is an important point.

Mr. Meaney referred to the contract that has been signed with William Hill and Coral for live streaming in betting shops. What will be the projected increase in revenue to the board as a result of this? Has it been considered that this could have an impact on gate receipts and people's willingness to attend meetings, which, in turn, could impact upon the board's overall finances? Having looked at the financial figures for the period 2006 to 2013, it seems the biggest problem has been the reduction in Tote receipts, which, I presume, come from betting at meetings. The issue seems to be declining attendances, which have a knock-on effect on Tote receipts. I do not know how that is going to be addressed or whether the new IGB proposals will have any impact on attendances. I would like to hear more about this.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a number of questions to be answered. With regard to asset disposal, we have heard much about Harold's Cross but I have not heard anybody refer to trying to eliminate the serious debt of €22.4 million, which is a substantial amount. I am at a loss to know why no one has come up with an alternative way to find funding or a suggestion as to how this issue will be resolved. Harold's Cross has been the main item put on the table with regard to how the issue is to be resolved and nobody has come up with anything else. What is the position with regard to Harold's Cross? Is there a process in place for the sale and what arrangements are there to move on that? The debt issue is serious and it needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. Obviously, it cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely. Is there a timescale for the sale of Harold's Cross and has the decision definitely been taken to sell the stadium?

Looking at this matter from the outside, it appears that many of the issues are legacy issues which have been in existence for a number of years. They were not dealt with and are now coming back to haunt us. Allegations have been made by previous contributors with regard to drugs.

Without going into detail, will the chairman or the chief executive respond to those particular allegations? The Morris report was mentioned. When will it be made public? If that report contains recommendations, will the Irish Greyhound Board accept them? Will a timescale be put in place for those recommendations to be implemented?

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the group from the Irish Greyhound Board and I thank them for their contributions. Communications is a two way street and the feedback I am getting from my interaction with the Minister and with the breeders’ federation is that there is no response to issues they are raising with the board on an ongoing basis. This is the board’s opportunity to respond to that. The greyhound racing industry will only be saved by everybody pulling together. If we pull in different directions, then the industry is finished. At the moment it is on life support - let us be honest about it - and without the intervention of Government finance, it would be dead. We need to put it back together and we need to communicate.

Will the board co-operate in terms of having meetings with the federation or will we be required to put that on a statutory footing, because that is what we will do? I do not want to have to do that. I want the board to sit down - not an adjunct, or a sub-committee, of the board - as equals with the federation to discuss the issues we have gone though at this committee. The board was here for the contributions, so it knows the issues I have.

I refer to the contracts in regard to streaming, Carol and William Hill. I watch dog racing and horse racing online every chance I get, although I have no interest in a lot of it because it is not competitive. I have it fixed in my head that it is all a set-up, so there is no point in having a bet on it. I do not want to include Irish greyhound racing in that. Streaming greyhound racing online is not, in itself, a panacea or an opportunity for the industry to make a profit unless people participate. What deal has the Irish Greyhound Board done? Is it based on participation or just on providing this service? The streaming of the races can be shown to whoever one likes and it can be on every screen in every betting office in Ireland, but if people are not having a punt on it and if the industry is not getting anything out of it, then it is not worth a hat of crabs.

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

Even though he is not a member of this committee, I invite Deputy Buttimer to make a contribution.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been watching the proceedings on the monitor and as the person whose house is closest to a greyhound track, I welcome the members of the Irish Greyhound Board and commend them on the work they are doing. It is a challenging environment, whether as a trainer, an owner, a breeder or in management. I have found the chairman, Mr. Meaney, and the CEO, Ms Larkin, very interactive and very approachable. We may not agree on everything but I have never found them to be unavailable. We have had our debates about the changing of time in Cork and I hope they will go back to the old time. However, in regard to the new Cork track, the board is not afraid to try ideas and it is being innovative and open. That is not to say there is not disagreement with the owners, breeders and trainers but I believe it is about changing the model and the landscape of how we look at greyhound racing. If one has to try new models - the Senator spoke about going online - I have no difficulty with that if we can bring more people in. When the greyhound track moved from the Western Road venue to Curraheen Park, there was consternation but it has transformed racing in Cork and brought people into the greyhound industry.

We have to be innovative and creative in how standards can be improved, whether those standards are for greyhound welfare or for trainers and owners, and I am biased towards them. One of my criticisms of the board, and I am being parochial, is that there are not enough Cork people on it and we need to see that rectified. The greyhound industry is undergoing profound change. There are issues to be addressed, such as the provision of stadia and whether to sell the venues.

It behoves this committee to not just challenge the board but to work with it on all levels. To its credit I have found the board open to discussion but I appreciate Senator Landy's point that maybe we should be more open in dialogue and in how we interact. I wish to commend Mr. Phil Meaney and the board.

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

The committee has a little extra time and may be able to revisit some supplementary questions. However, I will first invite the IGB representatives to respond to what has already been said.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I thank the Chairman. I will deal with some of Senator Ó Domhnaill’s points and then my colleague Dr. Colm Gaynor will deal with the drugs issue. Ms Geraldine Larkin will cover the issues surrounding Harold’s Cross along with some financial matters.

I am amazed at one thing but I do not know who I am amazed at in that I cannot understand where the perception of lack of communication comes from. Personally I attend the tracks at least four nights a week. I attend any meeting that I am asked to by any organisation, track or affiliation. I have turned down no requests. Somebody said recently that I did not attend a meeting with the federation. I was not invited. Whatever failings I have, and whether my position is tenable or otherwise, I am open to communication. In my own opening statement, in last year’s opening statement and in my interview when I became chairman of the IGB, I referred to working together. I want it on the record that I am fully supportive of owners, breeders and greyhound representatives. I have said this on every possible occasion, and I have said it to the CEO Ms Geraldine Larkin when she joined, that we will never have a true greyhound industry until we have all members working together.

I have found the problem is that I cannot get everybody to go in the same direction. I took a call on the way to this committee and the caller pointed out that some of the people here were not representing them. I am totally behind more communication and working together and in that regard Senator Landy makes a valid point about communication being a two-way street. I refuse to accept that the board, the senior executive or myself as chairman will not communicate with people and I would ask for instances of my failure to communicate. In saying this I am absolutely not being defensive.

I had a concern for the industry and an example of that concern is illustrated by a previous statement to this committee that Shelbourne Park is the only track upon which a bet can be placed in the bookmakers. If the Senator has money in his pocket he can put it on a race in Tralee. Last night he could have placed it on a race in Youghal. On Sunday he could have placed a bet for a race in Mullingar. I feared I would never get an opportunity to make that clear and that people would go out of here believing that one could only back on events at Shelbourne Park. That is hugely important. That is not a personal saving, it is a saving for the industry.

It was stated that all tracks are loss making. From the interaction I have with private tracks I understand that they are all profitable, albeit that they are making a small profit. Our own tracks have one Tote licence, so the tote is reported upon separately, away from the income of the stadium itself. When the Tote relevant to that particular track is put back to that track it means that almost all tracks are profitable.

That is my second concern. I could keep going but I will not do so. I just wish to make a few important points. The other point I wanted to make is that we have taken over food and beverages. Someone said the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It has gone extremely well. We had budgeted to break even, at best, but because of the capital expenditure, capex, we had in year 1 it will be profitable. I am quite happy that food and beverages are going very well.

I was involved in a track before I became chairman of Bord na gCon. I was a member of the Greyhound Owners and Breeders Association, GOBA, before I joined Bord na gCon. At present, fewer than half the tracks are affiliated. I appeal to GOBA, and will work with it, to get all the tracks working together. I will be part of that communications strategy.

The one thing that needs to be addressed is track distances. All tracks were privately owned prior to the setting up of the IGB in 1958. They were designed by different architects and constructed by different engineers and they all vary in length. However, the length is only a very small part of it. Other issues include the camber, drainage and underlying system of the track. If every track was exactly the same distance, there would still be huge variations. For example, Kilkenny is one of the longest tracks in the country but it is far from one of the slowest because so many things have to be taken into consideration. I will outline what we have done in terms of track ratings. First, we did it within the IGB and then we got it independently verified. We take into account the relative length of the track, the camber, drainage and all the things that make up the running surface of a track. Shelbourne Park is the datum and we work off that. Most of the tracks are slower and one track, namely, Deputy Buttimer’s track in Cork, is faster. The point I make is that up on the top of the card, of which we have a copy here, we also state the exact distance of a track. We are in no way trying to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes but the distance of the track is only part of the whole story. Do members understand the point I am making? It is that there are several other imponderables.

I do not want Senator Ó Domhnaill to think I am being defensive in any way. What I am trying to do is set the record straight. I have been involved in the industry for 40 years. The current board and executive have put in a huge effort to turn the industry around. I would be wrong to go out from here today without making that point. I would walk away from anything if I felt that a genuine effort was not being made to turn it around. A huge effort is being made, in particular in the past 12 months.

I will make another point and then I will hand over to my colleagues. For the first three years I was chairman, it was unbelievable in the sense that we were in the eye of a perfect storm. On one side, the industry and the disposable income in people’s pockets collapsed while, parallel to that, the support from the State was reduced by 30%. To me, the two of them created an almost perfect storm.

The first increase in money we got was at the beginning of 2015. I have some figures if I am allowed to give them to the Senator. Our attendance per meeting is up 8% this year. Our average gate income is up by 5.6%. The average concession from food and beverages is up 15%. The average from the Tote per person, per meeting is up 5.8%.

We did not have money to market the business. It was a case of trying to hold the business together until both the economy and the support for the industry picked up. That has now happened and we can already see the improvements. If the only problem facing the CEO, the executive and the board leaving here is one relating to communication, we will solve it quite quickly. Anyone who knows me will understand that I have no problem communicating with people.

I heard someone in the audience laugh when I said that. I make a commitment, for the record; I make myself available 24/7 for the greyhound industry and that will continue to happen. I will hand over to Ms Larkin who might like to speak on Harold's Cross.

Ms Geraldine Larkin:

A question was asked about our repayment of debt. We intend to pay €1.3 million this year in debt repayments. Part of that will come from the increased allocation this year from Government funding. The remainder of it, approximately €650,000, will come from the sale of our former Limerick headquarters. There are just the two components. I wish to be quite clear that we are starting to realise funds from the asset disposals this year in terms of writing down debt.

In terms of the more long-term disposal of Harold's Cross greyhound stadium. We looked at alternatives, but they are very limited when one takes into account the structure and nature of greyhound racing. Comments were made on the number of tracks in different locations such as the fact that there are two tracks in Cork and elsewhere. The reality when looking at the positioning of tracks is that we can only sell the tracks that we own and therefore that rules out one of the tracks in Cork and brings us back to Dublin. In terms of Dublin, we must look at the fact that we have two tracks within 2.5 km of one another. One has to close for the other to open. It is not a case that both tracks are simultaneously operating and making profit. That becomes a key determinant in what we are doing and the decision to move forward. The intention is that once Harold’s Cross is closed, the business and the greyhound owners attending there would transfer to Shelbourne Park. There will be transitional issues and we will have sit down with the Dublin Greyhound Owners and Breeders Association, GOBA, to work through. I have given my commitment that when we are at that stage, we will do that.

The other issue in terms of loss-making tracks across the network, is that the decision to sell a track is not just based on its commercial performance; we must also look at the impact of taking a track out of commission. For instance, if we were to sell the track in Cork or Galway, we must be aware of the impact of that on the surrounding area in terms of the dog pools and performance. There are a number of different variables feeding into play, not just the commercial performance of the track alone.

Members can rest assured that we have considered alternatives but realistically there are no viable alternatives. What we need to do is to clear the debt quite quickly. Comments have been made in terms of looking back at the 2012 strategy and comparing it to the current Indecon plan. The most significant difference between the two plans is the fact that Indecon recommended a much more rapid repayment of the debt. According to the Indecon plan the debt must be reduced to approximately €7 million by 2017. In our original strategy plan we were closer to €17 million at the end of 2017. Members can see the difference and the importance of the driver of just taking that debt down.

The other way the debt impacts is on the amount we are spending every year on interest. The sale of Harold’s Cross would significantly reduce the interest we repay and the money can then be released and re-invested back into the industry for its regeneration. Core to the regeneration of the industry is having a stadium in Shelbourne Park that is state of the art and first class. I do not just mean first class for our leisure industry and leisure patrons but also for owners and trainers. At the moment I am not in a position to make any sort of capital investment in the industry. With the sale of Harold’s Cross, that can then happen, and some of that money can be transferred into Shelbourne Park to make those investments.

There were also questions in terms of the TV trial. The TV trial is just that; it is a trial at the moment.

The first part of that trial has been completed and has proven that the Irish greyhound industry has successfully worked to show it can deliver a high integrity, closely graded product; a viable live betting product for the industry and for the wider wagering market. The matter of payments and how they might be made is still at trial stage so we are still working through that process. It is a 12 week trial which commenced on 1 September 2015 so it has a number of weeks until completion. When the trial is concluded the IGB will look at the next step and will take into account what is on offer regarding the commercial reality. Currently we are opening stadiums that might not be viable at times. If we are looking forward to a product at a particular time and place then all of that must continue and all of those factors must balance because we cannot have a situation whereby individual tracks are operating at a loss, for the sake of television, hence the purpose of a TV trial. That is an ongoing piece of work.

Reference was made to food and beverage. Food and beverage give us the advantages of flexibility and adaptability. For example, if we see a night when attendances are poor - and if we project these monthly and weekly - we can target marketing activities, digital strategies and use the food and beverage offerings on particular nights in order to drive up attendance numbers. This is working successfully.

We are in a position to drive our attendances earlier and faster. We are not yet out of October but I can report that as of yesterday due to our manipulating food offerings, and having the ability to advertise this much earlier on because we are in control of the market, we have seen a 20% increase and we intend to build and grow on that result.

I will now turn to communications. Much has been said at this committee today about communications. The greyhound industry is a hugely fragmented industry with many different groups involved. Since I was appointed CEO of the Irish Greyhound Board I have had a number of exchanges with the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation. There are a number of other groups totally separate from the federation and in an ideal world it would be great to bring all the groups together, not just the IGOBF, because different groups have different opinions and indeed there are differing opinions within groups. Debate is good and useful but the fragmented aspect of the industry is a challenge.

We also meet with a number of other stakeholder groups who have separate lives from the IGOBF and we meet groups at stadium level. I attend all the meetings of all the stadia, as do the representatives from the board. There are representatives from the local community, from the local greyhound owners' and breeders' associations and from the local track supporters’ clubs. There is quite a lot of feed in at grass-roots level on local issues, on national issues and on a broader scale basis from the federation. All of the issues however come on a fragmented basis. For example, one of the areas where it can become frustrating, and which underlines the concept of communications as a two-way street, is a recently issued public consultation paper on how to grow incentives, offering a number of different proposals and seeking other proposals. I put that consultation document forward as a seed document to spark the conversations. I received ten responses.

However, I received no response from the federation. That can make it very difficult to engage. I am sure there is a reason the federation has not submitted a reply. I would be happy to receive one and work through it. These are the difficulties from this side of the table and anything that pulls all sides together - both those inside and outside this room - is for the benefit of the industry because we all want the same thing, which is a sustainable industry.

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

There were a number of references, in this and the previous session, to drugs. It is an important matter and it will be difficult to deal with all the points in the time we have but I will say something general on the issue. Reference was made to the Morris report and I will also comment on that. I will then discuss artificial insemination.

Regarding the concerns about drugs, the committee has seen the two statutory instruments we have made. This is a first step and there will be more. The statutory instruments address issues which were clearly important. First, that the dog which was positive at the race should not race again until it is negative. Prior to this the dog could race on and on. Second, that the results are published when they are available, so there is no secrecy and no hiding and people know that we have found the results. The dog may be positive, and the results are described as “adverse analytical findings”, but it does not mean that any fault on the part of owners or breeders has been established. That is a separate issue which will be taken to the control committee.

We have also made public the control committee findings and its reasons in all cases regardless of whether there is to be an appeal. Members may recall that previously when a case was taken, because of the way the regulations were written, we could neither give the results when they were available nor mention anything about the outcome of the control appeal committee - if there was an appeal from the control committee on the one hand and if on the other hand, the person was found to have been in no way wrong. As a result, there was a gap in our ability to publish information. That gap is now removed. We particularly want people to know why the control committee says a case taken by the IGB was not good. We want it known why people were innocent as much as why they were guilty. That is what we have done with the regulations and more will follow.

We now have to get to grips with training, testing and other areas. We started on the sales side but we have more to do. To give this process a sound scientific grounding we have established a scientific committee, as explained by the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes. The expertise on that committee is international, is involved in the regulation of medicines, understands drug depletion studies and it knows how to compute the issues at the basis of drug control in the performance of dogs.

I will now turn to the Morris report. We have the final draft with us, dated 26 August. There will be issues with which to consult the industry and the committee has already discussed some of these today. We are interested in the advice Professor Morris can give us on what an internationally accepted standard is for how we do our business in this area. There will be people who will not agree with his views and we will have to see what they think.

I remind members about the idea floated at this committee on zero tolerance for drug use. People talk about zero tolerance in two different ways. On the street, zero tolerance in relation to rules is to the effect that no breach will be tolerated and everybody concerned will be prosecuted. However, another way in which people talk about it is to the effect that there should be zero molecules in a sample. That is the sense in which some people have raised zero tolerance. Members must realise that as science develops, as analytical capabilities increase and as machinery gets better there becomes less and less potential for no molecules in a sample.

If an animal is treated with something then as time goes on, it gets smaller and smaller and depletes in theory to zero eventually, but very slowly.

These are the issues we will have to talk about when we see the Morris report and consult on it. In international terms, the usual rule is that one establishes irrelevant levels, which do not influence better training or better racing and then use those to judge a pass or a fail. That is a discussion that will have to continue. We have no decisions on it at present but that is the way international animal sports operate at present.

In respect of Procaine and the positives that are found as a result of feeding category 2 meat to dogs, we fully acknowledge that is a problem. There is unfortunately, however, research from the United States that shows the injection sites of the animals that have been treated contain residues which can result in positives that were never intended by trainers or owners involved who fed their dogs that meat. We do not accept this and we are reviewing it at present. There will be discussions about it. In our view some constraint has to be placed on category 2 meats usage in greyhounds to avoid this in some cases, or in other cases to prevent people from potentially being allowed to fly under the radar. We do not want that.

I will speak briefly on the artificial insemination regulations. As members may be aware, the artificial insemination regulations contained a provision that required the use of semen from a dog that had died within the past two years to cease. There was a debate for some time about whether that rule should continue to exist. In that time dogs continue to be registered in the stud book. The Irish Greyhound Board has no role in registering dogs in the stud book that belongs to the Irish Coursing Club, ICC and we have no way of forcing the ICC to correct the matter. We have two situations which we have had to resolve. From 1 November 2014, we amended the regulations to remove the provision about the two year provision with a clear indication to everybody that we would examine the science behind this rule and the business case for it and come back if necessary with a proposal for what the rule should be. We started looking at the science aspect and it is a question of looking at the degree of inter-breeding that has occurred and whether it is at an acceptable levels in terms of pedigrees in dogs, etc. When we have a better idea of where that is going we will be able to take a science approach to that decision and the contribution which artificial insemination might make to it. There is the question of the business case and the best rule in terms of developing the industry on the breeding side. That is an issue for the future and we will probably change things.

Are we running short of time?

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

It has been indicated that Mr. Murnane might wish to contribute.

Mr. Michael Murnane:

I am okay.

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

There is of course, the period before when dogs were registered in the registry of the stud book but which under the rule should not have been so registered. Those dogs are in the register. As they are in the register they are entitled to race and cannot be stopped racing. There is a difficult situation because there are people with legitimate expectations and dogs that are bred from them. That is something we will have to look at when we know where we are going with the science of it and what we can do to resolve that time period to which I referred. It is not easy.

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

I am glad we have the extra half an hour to address this.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a number of supplementary questions. I will start with Dr. Gaynor's contribution on the frozen semen issue. It is my understanding that the legal advice given to the board from Ross Alyward, Esq, BL as a preliminary opinion in February 2013 did provide that it was for the ICC, and the bord of the IGB, to ensure that the integrity of the industry is maintained and that its laws are complied with. He went on to state:

There is no escaping the need to apply the two year death limit in my view. To fail to do so is only to perpetuate an already existing problem. In essence the bord finds itself where it does. The damage has been done in that the two year limit has not been complied with. Nothing can be done now, in terms of turning back the clock on the issue (one cannot go back retrospectively). However the bord can now seek to ensure that the AI regulations are complied with.

Is that happening now?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

The board can ensure the AI regulations are complied with but it cannot ensure that all aspects of it, which are in the hands of other people, can be complied with. What we have done is that we have changed the regulation so that the issues that are raised no longer arise. There is no longer a two-year limit. The issue has gone away until we have found the proper-----

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How can the issue go away?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

It is now possible to register the dogs that are now bred from semen of that nature.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The semen of dogs that have died more than two years can now be used.

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

Yes, it can be used.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who changed the rules?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

We did last year by way of statutory instrument. At the same time, we said we would examine the science behind it and the business case for a similar rule in the future, if it was desired.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was that to allow the IGB to subvert the legal opinion?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

It was not subverting the legal opinion; it was brining dogs back into compliance. There was no way for us-----

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why were the dogs brought back into compliance?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

Those dogs have not been brought back into compliance. That is the legal problem. The dogs before 1 November 2014 cannot now be brought back into legal compliance, as the Senator puts it, but to be definite, they are registered and are on the stud book.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the IGB changed the rules?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

No, not at all.

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

Dr. Gaynor made that point already. The registration and the stud book was beyond the control of the IGB and the only way to deal with it was to go back to the drawing board and start again. That is how I interpreted it.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Dr. Gaynor quite satisfied that the changes that have been introduced have not exposed the IGB to any further litigation down the road?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

Yes, absolutely.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Dr. Gaynor give his view on the manner in which the drug testing takes place at the stadium on any given evening? As I understand it, the control committee is a sub-committee of the IGB and, therefore, is under the remit of and paid for by the IGB. In Dr. Gaynor's opinion does that meet the international best practice in relation to independence and oversight of drug testing?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

The way the control committee has been structured using the powers under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 is to remove all ability of the board to deal with any issue which has been given to the control committee. Should there be any doubt about that, I am sure the amendments that the Minister will bring forward will copper-fasten it. If one reads through the sections that enable it, it has been structured in such a way as to almost irreversibly delegate any previous role which the board had to the control committee. My experience of it is that there is a completely hands off relationship.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this in the new Bill?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

No, I am talking about the present.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Dr. Gaynor believe that is the current position?

Dr. Colm Gaynor:

Yes, absolutely.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair to Dr. Gaynor, some of these issues are news to me. The problem goes back to the fundamental aspect of a lack of communication and listening to the federation, in particular. Mr. Meaney mentioned that he would be available to meet or to communicate. The fundamental point is that he is the chairman of the IGB, Bord na gCon, which is a remunerated position. The volunteers, the owners and the breeders are not. Therefore, the IGB needs to take a lead role and to facilitate, whether it is quarterly engagement with the owners and the breeders. Until that happens, one will not have the communication that has been talked about in the Indecon report. The improvement is not going to take place. It is "Killinaskully"-type stuff - I am available to meet anybody.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I resent that. That is grossly unfair.

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

In fairness, Senator-----

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not what I am hearing. Let me ask a question. Has any communication from the federation requesting a meeting with the board been obtained?

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

Ms Larkin referred to a consultation document, to which there had been no response.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. Phil Meaney:

Mullingar GOBA, Kerry GOBA, Limerick GOBA and Tipperary GOBA invited me to meet them and I went to meet them. That is why I resent the Senator's point. I cannot recall during my four years as chairman of Bord na gCon turning down an invitation, not only from GOBA but from anybody.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about the federation which appeared before us today.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I have met the federation on occasions. I take the Senator's point that the onus is on me to contact it. I go to so many meetings and I meet so many groups, including splinter groups, that I do not go looking for meetings. I have turned down no invitations.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Mr. Meaney turned down no invitation from the federation?

Mr. Phil Meaney:

No, from nobody.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Mr. Meaney turned down no invitation from the federation?

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I have not turned down an invitation from the federation.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have minutes of a meeting and I want to acknowledge that Mr. Meaney met the federation in Thurles a number of months ago.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

I did.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to acknowledge that.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

Senator, through the Chair, I have-----

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I have the support of the Chair?

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

Yes, through the Chair, and we will come back to Mr. Meaney.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not here for confrontation; none of us is.

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

In the best interests of the industry, we need to-----

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not here to play the man either; I am here to play the ball. This is about the ball, which is the greyhound industry. Let me quote Mr. Meaney, who said, "If the only problem is communication, we will solve it quickly." I want to take that remark in the good faith it was made. What happened in the past has happened. There was a request from the federation for a meeting with the board in the past couple of months but that did not happen. It can be dressed up whatever way one likes. I am not going into that. What I would like to do is to look towards tomorrow or next week. I am requesting that the board, as an entity, meet the federation. I do not like the attempted effort to belittle the federation at today's meeting. The federation is the umbrella body for GOBA and represents those who have affiliated. I come from the cycling town of Carrick-on-Suir, where we had two cycling organisations going back to the Civil War. There will always be splinter groups and organisations that will peel away. This is the national recognised body with nominating rights to the Seanad, which demonstrates its bona fides. It is the organisation that I request Mr. Meaney to meet. I hope he will respond in the affirmative.

I have a question on Harold's Cross greyhound stadium, which I address to the chief executive, Ms Geraldine Larkin. According to Indecon, she was supposed to put in place a process, which I am sure she has, to look at the rezoning of Harold's Cross. Obviously, the value of it is based on it being rezoned. At present, it is zoned for amenities only. Could Ms Larkin give us a progress report on the proposed rezoning of the property? Without rezoning, it will not realise its sales potential of €10 million. At present, it is probably worth €2 million, which the Minister acknowledged.

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

There are two distinct questions. One is a request that the board of IGB, as distinct from the chairman, meet the federation? The second question relates to Harold's Cross. Is that correct?

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

As chairman, I think I can speak on behalf of the board of IGB when I say it is willing to meet the federation.

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

The second question is about the progress report.

Ms Geraldine Larkin:

Earlier this year, the IGB made submissions on rezoning to the Dublin city development plan. The submissions were presented to councillors last month as part of the overall draft consultations on the zoning plan. While the submissions were accepted by the executives of Dublin City Council, they were not accepted by the councillors in terms of what it is issuing for the draft plan.

The draft plan is now out for consultation and the IGB, as part of that ongoing planning process, will be making further submissions to Dublin City Council on why we believe there should be a change of zoning on the land. Senator Landy is quite right - the value is dependent on getting that change in zoning. That process will involve engagement with local stakeholders, local residents and local public representatives as well.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair, what is the timescale on that?

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

The Dublin city development plan has gone for public consultation. It is part of the normal planning process.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have heard a great deal of talk about the lack of communication and there is no doubt that it is a diverse group. Everybody wants to go forward in the same direction but, in the context of the introduction of legislation in the future, would it help if a statutory process were put in place? Would it assist the engagement process if GOBAs throughout the country were part of a statutory process?

Ms Geraldine Larkin:

From my perspective, communication is a two-way street. Without prejudicing the right of the committee to make recommendations, a requirement for consultation can be included in legislation but unless that communication is a two-way process and there is real engagement, we will not get where we want to be. I do not know how one would address that in terms of including in legislation a dual obligation on all parties.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On foot of the chief executive's last comment, it seems that mediation may be required. Would it be of assistance to have independent facilitation to try to bring everything together? Is it so fragmented and broken that it is impossible, notwithstanding the fact that there will be a meeting shortly? We assume the federation will be invited to meet the board. Can we assume that? That would be a welcome first step.

Mr. Phil Meaney:

Through the Chair, Senator Ó Domhnaill must take on board the fact, as Senator Landy stated, that the federation is the only official body. How does one deal with others who are not affiliated but who insist on meeting the chairman of IGB? From the day I came into the industry, my wish has been that we would get all the parties working together and that there would not be fragmentation. Perhaps it cannot happen. That is the problem. I will give an undertaking to the Senator, through the Chair, that I will meet the federation. However, he should not leave here believing that solves the problem. It does not even solve half of the problem.

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

I think we have given the matter a fair hearing. I hope everybody feels that way and that this engagement was worth waiting for. I am of the view that we are at the start of something and I thank all the witnesses and the members for their contributions and engagements.

The greyhound Bill may or may not be concluded by the end of the term of this Dáil. There will be another committee. This forum is useful from the point of view of bringing issues out into the open. Until they are discussed, they cannot be addressed. It is important that we facilitate better understanding on all sides. I am conscious of the fact that there may be other interested groups which may seek to come before the committee and we will have to facilitate them once their bona fides have been established. I make that point because there are witnesses from organisations that were here previously. We cannot be seen to prejudice anybody.

I would never claim that Horse Racing Ireland (Amendment) Bill is perfect but it does offer a structure that allows for engagement by all stakeholder through its committee and board structures.

It might not be the perfect model between promotion and integrity, but it certainly offers an option and a model to work from. We can learn from mistakes and take on board what the specific needs of the greyhound industry are. We have learned quite a lot today and can identify some of the key issues, which include finance and doping. It all boils down to reputation and confidence and without communication, dialogue and proper regulation and integrity functions, one will not achieve them. If people do not have confidence in an industry, they will not support it. They could be owners, breeders, punters or the organisers of a charity who want to bring people out for a night's entertainment and know that they can have a honest punt and that if they lose, they lose on a level playing pitch. It all boils down to the person who has no interest in the sector other than this. That is what we are seeking to achieve.

I again thank everybody for his or her endurance. At almost four hours, it has been an endurance test.