I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, lines 4 to 6, to delete "or other interest groups affected by the decisions of HRI or who use the various facilities and services provided by HRI".
This amendment is necessitated by my deep attachment to a subsequent amendment. While this amendment simply deletes a certain reference in the section in question, it is motivated by the fact that I am proposing that there be punters representatives on the new board. There was a long discussion on this on Committee Stage. I am disappointed to note that the Minister does not have an amendment tabled for Report Stage that reflects what I proposed on Committee Stage. Has the Minister had any second thoughts in the meantime? He argued on Committee Stage that it would be difficult to find suitable representatives of punters to be members of the board because there was a diversity of interests involved and a rather dispersed group of people, to which I replied that he did not seem to have any difficulty envisaging finding representatives of punters to go on the forum he proposes to set up. I suggested that if he could find suitable representatives to go on the forum, equally he could find suitable representatives to be on the board. The proposal he made to have representatives on the forum is an admission that the basic amendment on which this is based, which I put forward, is feasible and I can see no reason he should not proceed to do this. The Minister knows perfectly well that a person who is a member of the board of the Horseracing Authority, the body which it is proposed to terminate and replace by the HRI, represents punters. She has carried out that job for some time. I am not in a position to judge what kind of a hearing that person has had, but that experience should indicate that it would be appropriate to continue with that, which is what I propose in seeking to expand the board to make that kind of representation possible.
The Minister also told us on Committee Stage that he wants to provide this forum because there are a number of other interests in the sector that he would like to see consulted. For that reason, he felt it would be appropriate and that it could include representatives of racegoers organisations, of jockeys and, if my memory serves me correctly, he even though of representatives of people who work in the stables and so on. I perfectly understand that proposal. If the Minister is going to proceed with that proposal, then these people should also be represented on it.
I seriously want to make the point that it is not enough to pay lip service to the idea that the most important people in this business are the punters. Without them, there would be no business. Without the people who go to the race tracks, who watch races on television, who go to the bookies' offices, who organise race nights to support their political parties or charitable causes or any of the many other reasons people organise race nights, there would not be an industry. People organise race nights because they like racing and because, as the Minister knows well, they think it is a good way to get a crowd in to support a political party, a charitable cause or a community organisation. Those people like racing. They like to see horses racing. They like to have a bet and they are interested in racing.
If those people were not there, there would be no point in having the HRI, racecourses or doing all the things the HRI will set out to do. It is a case of "if you ain't got customers, then you ain't got a business". We need those people because they are the foundation and the sine qua non of the business. If we did not have those people, there would be no point in breeding good race horses or training them. There would be no point in building racecourses or in having senior stewards, clerk stewards and all the rest of them. There would be no point in the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development spending time worrying about it or colloguing with the Minister for Finance to sort it out. Without these people, there would be no business.
It seems that to have a board to run the affairs of the business in the way the Minister proposes here without those people having a say is pure nonsense. Why does the Minister not realise that? There may be people in the business who feel there are aspects of it that are mysterious, arcane or hidden from the public gaze. There are not. There are no mysteries in this business. There is a good deal of competition in it and a good deal of information people in the business like to keep from others in the business for commercial reasons, but there are no arcane mysteries about it. There is no special reason some people in the business are represented there and others are not, although maybe I am wrong, maybe there are. Perhaps it is because people who concentrate on a certain type of activity, who are a smaller group than the total group of the punters, have a particular interest. If I wanted to be pejorative about it, which I do not, I would describe it as a vested interest. It is what is called a vested interest in common parlance. They have a particular interest in the business. They will legitimately try to promote that interest and will argue probably rightly that in promoting that interest they are also promoting the general interests of the business. That is all very fine as far as it goes, but it does not go the whole length.
There is one group of people who have the basic interest that is needed in this business. They are prepared to spend their money at evening meetings on a Saturday or on a Sunday, at festivals, at race meetings, patronising racecourses, going to the tote, going to the bookies' shops, or even, God forbid, there are people who are prepared to pay per view to watch it on television. All those people are there and they do that because they enjoy it. If they did not do that, there would be no point in any of this because there would be no business. It is the punters who generate demand for all the things that the people who will now be represented on this board actually do.
I do not know how one would describe this Government. It increasingly seems to be fractionated. I think most of its members would think they are democratic. If the Minister has them, which I am sure he has, I ask him to unleash his democratic instincts and accept the legitimacy and the fundamental nature of the interests of punters in the business. It is not a major step. It will not do any violence to the Bill, to the board, to the interests which it is proposed to represent on the board or to the future of the business; quite the contrary. If the Minister, when talking to the organisations to which he will talk in order to set up this forum, asks them to agree a proposal so that two representatives of theirs can be appointed to be members of this board, he will have done a good day's work and we will have a board of which it can truly be said represents all aspects of this business.
The Minister is smiling benignly at me as he usually does. It is his way out of most difficult situations and I have seen him do it time after time. He smiles benignly and everyone thinks this is gentleman Joe and that he is a very nice man, but they forget to notice he is not doing any of the things they want him to do. I ask him if there anything inaccurate or untrue in what I have said. Does he believe I am wrong in saying that without punters we would have no business? Does he believe I am wrong in saying that it is punters who provide the impetus for everything this board will do? Without punters there would be no future for this business. If the Minister tells me I am wrong in any of my assertions, I will happily withdraw the amendment. However, if he cannot tell me I am wrong, the only sensible thing he can do is accept this amendment and the later one that gives rise to it.
