Although this Bill has been long awaited, it is a great disappointment to me and to many people who are involved in and who have the interest of horseracing and its associated and downstream activities at heart. The Bill purports to repeal the Racing Board Act, 1945 but, in effect, it re-enacts it giving many more powers to the racing board. It makes that board, under its new title of the Irish Horseracing Authority, the totally dominant feature in the control and in the organisation of Irish horseracing. It is inappropriate that a sport such as this should be nationalised. The degree of State and political control envisaged in the Bill will strangle, stultify and have a detrimental effect on this sport.
I repudiate the Minister's description of the Racing Board as a success. In recent years, particularly, its record has been abysmal. In any country, running a State-owned monopoly totalisator is regarded as a licence to print money. In this country, on the other hand, the Racing Board succeeds in losing money on the tote, a considerable achievement. The latest accounts available are for the year ended 31 December 1992 and while separate figures are not given for the tote — the published accounts are very inadequate, presumably for the purpose of concealing reality — nonetheless it is possible to extrapolate the position from the figures published. It is worth noting that although the accounts for the Racing Board for 1992 were finalised and signed by the directors on 23 April 1993, they were published only last week, approximately 12 months later. We still do not have accounts for 1993, but the figures quoted by the Minister this morning indicate that the abysmal position shown in the 1992 accounts deteriorated even further in 1993. This is further borne out by the fact that the Minister had to come to the Dáil last December for an emergency Vote of £1 million to fund some of the losses.
The figures shown in the Racing Board accounts for 1992 indicate a loss on the tote of £1,214,104, which has to be made up by Government grants funded by the taxpayer. Why a body that is so exceptionally unsuccessful as this is retained in place and given further and more extensive powers of control mystifies me. At least twice in his speech the Minister boasts about the State grant. He stated, "The State is making a major contribution to the financing of the racing industry and, as I have said earlier, it will continue to be a major contributor in the years to come". The Minister seems to take pleasure from the fact that he doles out sums of money each year to the racing industry. If this Bill is passed he will appoint 14 people to the Authority and he and his Department will be involved in all kinds of detailed matters relating to racing. My fundamental disagreement with him and the Government on this Bill relates to the fact that we are having more and more State control and interference in the regulation of an industry whose members would be well able to regulate themselves, as they do in many other countries, if they were left alone by the Government.
There would not be a need for Government grants to racing if a racing structure was set up that allowed the Authority to generate its own income. Classic examples of this can be seen in Australia and Hong Kong where the prize money is enormous, but where racing authorities are entitled to a percentage of the off-course betting revenue, are allowed to act independently and plan for the future, confident that they have a guaranteed income which they can increase if they are successful in expanding the industry. I am sure all Members are aware of the extraordinary case in recent months of the six-year-old gelding that travelled 12,000 miles into a different hemisphere, a totally opposite season, remained there a few days and won the big race for which the prize money was equivalent to IR£900,000. The quality of the racing and the horses in Australia must not be outstanding if an Irish six-year-old gelding can win against all the odds in such circumstances. Nonetheless, the racing industry there is enormous.
A few years ago I attended a race meeting in Sha Tin in Hong Kong. My hosts apologised for the fact that it was such a small meeting and said I must not find it as exciting as I should. They explained that because a big meeting was scheduled to take place in two or three days' time, the card was not very interesting and the crowd was small. A total of 50,000 people attended that meeting. The stand is 200 feet high and four furlongs long, and it was almost full, but the card was very dull. Every race was a handicap. Because of the poor quality of horses as a result of the climate they have no option, for betting purposes, but to run most races as handicaps. Yet they can generate enormous interest and give out huge prize money because they are allowed control and run meetings for the benefit of the racing industry. In contrast, the Minister wants the industry here to come to him, cap in hand, every year, begging for funds from the taxpayer who should not be liable to fund the industry, which is well capable of being self-supporting if it were left alone and the dead hand of the bureaucratic State removed from it.
Other than the reference to on-course levies, there is no reference in the Bill to revenue for the Authority. If the Authority is established in that form, racing will be dependent on the annual whim of the Minister. If, in the future, we have a Minister who is antagonistic towards racing or we have a Labour Minister, what will happen?
The anxiety of the Minister to be the dominant factor and to interfere in every way possible is not confined to financial considerations, although his exercise of financial power gives him great control. In case he was not satisfied with that, he goes on to spell out in the Schedule to the Bill how he will appoint the majority of the members of the Authority. He goes through the charade of suggesting they will be nominated by particular organisations, but that will not be the case. The organisations will have to send him a list of three nominees from which in each case he will pick one and we can be sure the person selected in each case will be the most politically acceptable. It is a matter of great regret that something as important as the racing industry should be subjected to this kind of political payola.
It is already known in the industry that certain types of power brokers who hover on the periphery are boasting that they will be appointed to the Authority. Even after the appointment of the members of the Authority paragraphs 4 and 12 of the Schedule give the Minister the right to fire any of them at any time without reason. It is monstrous that the Minister should be empowered to dismiss without notice or reason the senior steward of the Turf Club or any other steward appointed. The manner in which the Turf Club has been treated under the Bill is not good enough. The obvious problems in Irish racing and the decline in betting and revenue are not the fault of the Turf Club. Whatever its perceived shortcomings no one can dispute that it has run Irish racing for more than 200 years with honesty and integrity. Now that it is pushed aside — irrespective of what the Minister may say — Irish racing and the respect which exists for it abroad must decline.
The Minister is making a belated attempt to undo some of the wrongs and retract some of the insults he has inflicted on the Turf Club and the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee by way of his proposed amendments. However, minimum amendments will not cure the inherent and basic defects in the Bill. It is objectionable that the Turf Club's activities should be confined to what happens at a particular race meeting on a particular day. Under the terms of the Bill, it appears that trainers and jockeys in future will be licensed not by the Turf Club but by the Authority. That arises not because the Bill says so specifically but because it says that any power not given to the Turf Club or to the regulatory bodies will be exercised by the Authority. It is deplorable that people should be licensed in future and that many aspects of racing should be regulated by those whose primary interest, unfortunately in some cases, will be party political.
The proposal in section 44 that the Turf Club could not make or amend any rules of racing without consulting the Authority is indicative of the Minister's approach. The fact that he is now prepared to change this is, in some respects, only a detail. Unfortunately, his underlying hostility to the regulatory bodies is indicated by that provision and others of that kind.
We are now proposing to extend the powers of an existing semi-State body and to virtually take over the powers of a private regulatory association which has existed successfully, with some honour and dignity, for over 200 years. That form of nationalisation is particulary questionable. In principle, I am against most forms of nationalisation and would resort to them only in an emergency. The manner in which this measure is being implemented at a time when there is deregulation everywhere in the world, is especially regrettable. We should recall the position in respect of the State's involvement in sport and in industry of this type. In 1958 the greyhound racing industry was partly nationalised through Bord na gCon. The original intention was that the tracks would remain in private ownership, but that did not happen and they are virtually all owned by the board. Bord na gCon has run greyhound racing for 36 years, but it has not been successful. It is regrettable, but a fact of life, that greyhound racing is in a weaker position today than at any time during those 36 years or before the establishment of the board. This Bill proposes the creation of a macro Bord na gCon in respect of an industry which is more important than greyhound racing, ten to 15 times larger and has major international ramifications while the greyhound racing industry has limited overseas activities. We should consider if this proposal is wiser and the proper way to proceed. The position in Britain has improved in recent years although there are major difficulties there. The British Government does not want to become involved, but it seems our Government cannot have enough involvement. There is a huge difference in the attitude and approach of both Governments to the industry and in the most successful countries, even though they do not have the natural resources we enjoy in countries, such as Hong Kong which hardly has enough space for a racecourse, and Australia, where although the climate is not favourable, the industry is hugely successful.
Having read the Bill and listened to the Minister there are two sections about which I am not clear and he should clarify them further in his reply. I question the need for the section that deals with the proposal to give the Authority, acting through a wholly owned subsidiary, a bookmaking licence to enable it to engage in bookmaking. What is the point of that? There is no shortage of bookmakers who are reasonably innovative and can cater for most tastes and pockets. Why should the State become involved in bookmaking?
Another section states that the Authority or a subsidiary can be given a new totalisator licence under the 1929 Act and seems to suggest that the licence can be used in places other than racecourses. The Minister explained if the licence was used in other places the Authority would be relieved of its obligation to provide accommodation for bookmakers which exists under the 1929 Act. That suggests totalisator offices or shops will be located away from the racecourses, but it is not clear from the section. Such a proposal would be welcome because the strength of the industry in Australia derives from the number of outlets usually in post offices, on that continent. It has the advantage of three time zones and racing takes place over a long period each day. It is possible to place a bet in any town or village in Australia through a computer system and I do not see why such a system could not be provided here as it would be an admirable one. The Minister seems reticent about spelling out the position. A totalisator system will have to be provided and I do not see why the Authority should become involved in bookmaking. However, it would be advantageous if it opened totalisator shops, outlets or terminals. The tote in England has been successful in that regard. The Minister should stand back, establish a group to deal with this and leave it alone. They should be given the powers and not restricted as they are under section 27 and obliged to come to him every year cap in hand. They should be given an entitlement to a percentage of off-course revenue such as 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent. They would know their position, responsibility should rest with them and they should be allowed get on with the job. If they can increase the revenue by encouraging more off-course betting on Irish racing — on which there is not much — it would be to their advantage.
The figures the Minister quoted this morning in respect of on-course betting are frightening. Bookmaker betting is declining at the rate of £10 million a year, a startling trend. If this continues we will have to pack up altogether. The overall amount spent on gambling is increasing all the time. One has only to look at the national lottery to realise that is so. That lottery has an effect on racing, which is a great pity. It should be spelled out in the Bill that racing should have a definite percentage share of revenue. Its percentage in respect of on course levies is spelled out in the Bill. Equally why is its percentage in respect of off course revenue not spelled out?
From listening to the Minister's speech I get the impression that he welcomes, as do many Ministers, the fact that a decision must be made every year as to whether £5 million, £6 million or £7 million will be provided in this area. They believe they should receive a medal if they provide a greater sum than that allocated by the previous Minister. This Minister is mature enough to realise that such an approach is wrong. The way to approach this matter is to set a fixed percentage of identifiable revenue from off course racing. This should extend not only to revenue from betting on racing but to revenue from betting generally. The position may have been complicated by the national lottery, and it is very unfair to charitable lotteries, but we can do nothing about that. Some percentage — 2.5 per cent seems reasonable — should be set down and thereafter the matter left up to the industry.
A great many things can be done with racecourses. A different approach should be taken to their utilisation. One change that was needed is the small change in the Bill about liquor licensing, but there are many more things that can be done and they should be included in the Bill. There should be a general attitude of giving freedom to whatever new Authority is set up. In particular we should not downgrade and grind into the ground the regulatory Authority that has existed since the middle of the 18th century and which did Irish racing proud. While sometimes people may complain it was a stick in the mud, it could never be described as dishonest or dishonourable. The function to sell racing in recent years was very much more a function of the Racing Board than of the Turf Club. It is wrong to seek to do away with a body that has stood us well and to introduce through the Bill an element into the control of racing, a nod and wink activity, that we have too much of in Ireland. Racing was able to stay above that approach when other activities could not do so and that position should remain.
If the Bill passes Second Stage, the Minister should consider this matter before Committee Stage. Minor amendments of the kind he mentioned this morning, while welcome, do not go to the root of the problem. A more fundamental rethink is necessary. While the Minister said that consultation took place, with three committees being set up, the only effective consultation was with the Turf Club and the Racecourse Owners' Association. A person such as Lord Killanin who has dealt with this matter in great detail and knows this area so well should be brought in and asked to change the thrust, not the detail, of the Bill so that we get it right. In his letter which I quoted earlier he said this is a great natural industry of Ireland. We always complain that we import foreign investment and foreign technology, but this is an industry that has existed since time immemorial, in which we have all the natural advantages, and we should not throw it away. We should get matters right, even if it takes another three or four months. Unhappily, the Bill before us does not get it right.
