The purpose of the meeting is to consider the following motion, which was referred by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 24 March 2009: "That Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann approve the draft order for the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund Regulations 2009." I welcome the Minister and his officials. I call on him to make his statement, following which I will invite members to pass comment. It is proposed business will be concluded within an hour.
Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund Regulations 2009: Motion.
I thank the Vice Chairman and members of the committee for facilitating me.
Under section 12 of the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001, the horse and greyhound racing industries receive financial support through the horse and greyhound racing fund. Under the provisions of the Act, the fund has between 2001 and 2008 received a guaranteed level of funding each year.
In 2004, the Government put in place regulations to increase the limit of the horse and greyhound racing fund from €254 million to €550 million and to continue the fund for a further four years to 2008. By the end of 2008, a total of €545.8 million had been paid out of the fund. Funding of both of these agencies — Horse Racing Ireland and Bord na gCon — supports two very important productive industries and helps to sustain the role of the horse and greyhound breeding and training enterprises in the development of the rural economy. These industries, together, account for an estimated 27,500 direct jobs, generate very substantial economic activity and make a vital contribution to the rural economy including farm incomes.
The funding being provided to the greyhound-racing sector helps in sustaining a tradition that has existed for hundreds of years. That funding underpins the economic activity in, what are in many instances, less affluent regions of the country. It has also contributed significantly to the almost €90 million that has been invested in the improved facilities now available at greyhound tracks around Ireland. The fund has allowed Ireland to develop into a world centre of excellence for horseracing and has allowed Horse Racing Ireland to undertake a capital investment programme that has underpinned growth in the sector.
Prior to budget 2009, a review of the fund was under way. However, because the review had not yet been completed, provision had to be made for the extension of the fund and its subsequent continuation into 2009. The total allocation for the fund, both current and capital, in 2009 would have been calculated on the basis of the year 2000 excise duty on off-course betting — €58.89 million — multiplied by the relevant CPI amounts. Taking a figure of 4.5% as an estimate of the annual average CPI for 2008, the 2009 fund allocation would have been €79.72 million. Of this, Horse Racing Ireland would have expected to receive €63.78 million and Bord na gCon would have expected to receive €15.94 million. However in the current economic climate it was decided and announced in budget 2009 of 14 October last that the provision for 2009 would be €55.7 million for Horse Racing Ireland and €13.9 million for Bord na gCon, a total of €69.719 million. This represents a reduction on 2008 funding of nearly 9% and a reduction of almost 13% on anticipated funding. A further reduction of €91,000 was made, in the context of departmental savings, in February 2009, bringing the allocation to €69.628 million.
In addition, given concerns surrounding the funding gap it was decided to make changes to the off-course betting tax. In the Finance (No. 2) Act, the tax was increased from 1% to 2%, with effect from May 2009. Given recent trends and projections for betting tax receipts in 2008, this will serve to significantly reduce the amount of direct Exchequer subvention required. The review of the fund is nearing completion and will be submitted to the Government in due course in the context of deciding on the future funding of these industries. In the meantime, in order that Horse Racing Ireland and Bord na gCon can draw down their allocations in the 2009 Estimates, provision must be made for the extension of the fund and its subsequent continuation during 2009. An amount of €69.628 million was provided for the fund for 2009 in the Vote of the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. The remaining balance in the fund at the start of 2009 was €4.2 million. Of that, €3.4 million has been paid out to Horse Racing Ireland and €0.8 million has been paid out to Bord na gCon in February. To pay out the balance of €65,407,713 in 2009, the aggregate limit in the fund must be increased by that amount.
On 3 March last, the Government agreed to increase the aggregate limit on the horse and greyhound racing fund by €65,407,713 pursuant to the provisions of section 12(5) of the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001. On that basis, the draft regulation, which is being considered by the committee, provides for an increase in the aggregate limit by €65,407,713 to an aggregate figure of €615, 407,713 — the cumulative provision in the fund since 2001.
Members will be aware of the difficult budgetary situation. Over the past month the Government has been engaged in a series of meetings at which every line of public expenditure has been scrutinised. The situation has now been reached whereby in finalising the Estimates for my Department for 2009 in preparation for next week's budget, I must identify additional spending reductions in my Department's Vote. On this basis, the Government has decided that the horse and greyhound fund should be further reduced by €1.5 million. Therefore, the aggregate limit of the fund will be increased by €63,907,713 to €613,907,713 — the cumulative provision in the fund since 2001. The level of funding available to these important industries will be €68.128 million, comprising the balance remaining in the fund of €4,220,287 plus €63,907,713.
I apologise to the committee for this late amendment to the regulation, but I trust that members will understand that this decision was only taken yesterday as part of the finalisation of the revised Estimate for my Department for 2009. I will circulate a copy of the revised regulation to the members of the committee. Section 12(13) of the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 provides that a draft of these regulations be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving the draft be passed by each House before the regulations are made by the Minister.
I will make a submission to Government regarding the future funding of the industries in due course, but in the meantime I ask for this committee's support to ensure that Horse Racing Ireland and Bord na gCon can receive their funding provision for 2009 and that the very important role of these industries and the employment supported and economic activity generated are sustained. I commend this revised regulation to the committee and look forward to discussing any matters arising.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. I am somewhat surprised by the reduction, given the Minister's commitment. I appreciate we are in a budgetary process, but I am sure the Minister is disappointed this important industry is seeing further reductions. I suppose, however, that every aspect of the Department's budget will be reduced.
We support extending the fund to ensure the money is made available to the horse and greyhound industry. My first concern relates to the tax that pays into the fund. Various rumours abound, but I understand that from next month that tax will rise to 2%. Is that correct? It is not clear that increasing the tax will increase the yield. I imagine that the yield from even the 1% will be down. If the yield from the economy is down 15%, I am sure the yield from betting is down at least as much. It seems clear that a considerable amount of the money must come from the general Exchequer, taxation as opposed to the specific tax on the industry.
That, coupled with the fact that we are only extending the fund for one year, leaves the industry in a state of great uncertainty, which is not in anybody's interest. The industry is anxious that funds resulting from a tax on the industry should be ring-fenced. We have also received representations from bookmakers. In some cases their solution is to set themselves up as mini casinos, which is not on. Nevertheless, they have a case because they are in a difficult position. The stated objective of the Paddy Powers of this world is to put the small independent bookmakers out of business. That is the reason they are still opening shops for off course betting in Ireland, even though the bulk of their profits and business come from Internet betting.
I do not need to persuade the Minister of the main issue, which is the importance of the horse racing industry, particularly in terms of the tourists it brings in, the exports it represents and the showcasing of Ireland generally. The image it presents of Ireland can so easily be lost. It has been lost already in the show jumping area and that element of the industry is gone. The showcasing of Ireland it used to represent when I was child is gone. Then, the Dublin Horse Show competitions were regularly won by Irish horses. That does not happen any more. An industry can disappear very quickly. Therefore, it is desperately important that we have some long-term way of funding this industry. No industry can survive on uncertain funding.
The horse racing industry is unique in a sense. The sporting element is the end of the chain and the industry itself depends on its funding from the sporting element of it, which is certainly not the costly element. The cost of breeding and training horses is significant. The sporting element and the bookies make their money by piggybacking on the end of this.
It is very important to have top class facilities and without the multi-annual funding which the fund represented, that kind of investment in both the greyhound and racing courses would never have taken place. The certainty of offering good prize money competitive with other locations outside the country is essential to maintaining the industry. We need to come up with a method of funding this industry because in this day and age it will not survive out of Exchequer funding. I do not believe this sector should be in sport but instead it should be in industry or agriculture where it receives the recognition it should have as an industry rather than as a sport. It is glib but people say, "Why are they getting more than half the funding of all the sporting funding?"
The Minister says he is looking to see how the industry will be funded in the long term. Is it realistic to talk about taxing offshore betting or is this just a red herring that will allow us to keep extending the fund year by year, which is death by a thousand cuts?
I thank the Minister for the presentation. There is constant reference to this sector as being an industry and on that basis, even going back a little in time when it was in agriculture, there has to be a case to be made for looking at what we are talking about. If it is compared with other sports, it is very difficult to justify the amounts of money from the general Exchequer going into horse-racing and greyhound racing compared with what goes into all the other sports. There are 63 other sports in the Irish Sports Council and when this is divvied out over the rest of the sports, it is a very small amount for each of the other sports.
The point has to be raised about whether this sector is in the right Department. It was in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. A significant part of the presentation relates to the industry aspect of the sector and this should be looked at. As to the general value to the community of horse-racing and greyhound racing, it is very valuable in terms of entertainment, the industry and so on. Given the times that are in it, would the Minister agree it is difficult to justify so much straight Exchequer money going into this industry by comparison with all the other needs?
The tax on the sector, which has evolved over the years, has decreased substantially. There is a strong case to be made in this regard. I ask the Minister to confirm when the increase from 1% to 2% will begin. The Minister also states that the projections for betting tax receipts in 2008 will serve to significantly reduce the amount of direct Exchequer subvention. Can he put a figure on this because it is crucial to our thinking on it?
With regard to the issue of offshore betting, there has been an effort to deal with this in America but it appears to be extremely difficult. Is this just another loophole we are never going to be able to tackle? I ask for the Minister's comments.
Various reports have been written over the years and an ESRI report in 2006 made a slightly glib comment that it is lavish in extent and weak in justification in terms of the funding that goes into the horse and greyhound fund. Multi-annual funding is available and that is good because it provides an element of sustainability year on year. However, this is not available to the other sports, nor to the Arts Council. It makes it very difficult for them. I ask the Minister to comment on these aspects.
It is disappointing that there is a further reduction in the fund available. We live in the real world and we must accept that reduction. Is the Minister satisfied he is getting enough support for the industry from the bookmakers? I live in the town of Listowel where there are 3,600 people on the register of electors and there are four major bookmakers and a fifth planning application by another major bookmaker. It seems to be a growth area in the recession.
I would like to know the figures for betting. Can the Minister get more from the bookmakers by way of contributions? As Deputy Mitchell said they are piggybacking to a certain extent on the industry. Is there any way the Minister can ensure that Horse Racing Ireland would use the funds in a way that would be equitable and fair? I refer to the promotion and sponsorship given by HRI to certain of the prestige racecourses as opposed to what it gives to a holiday festival meeting such as Listowel races. For instance, in 2007, the average attendance at the Curragh was 6,885 and the average attendance at Listowel was 12,372, despite the fact that the prize money at the Curragh is multiples of what would be available at Listowel. We get very generous sponsorship from local business and this is matched by HRI. I would like to see a more equitable spread. Especially now that things are tightening up it will be very difficult for the smaller racecourses to compete. I would like to see more equity as part of the Minister's support for the industry.
I thank the Minister for his submission to the committee. I was here in 2002 when the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy John O'Donoghue, brought a similar Bill through this committee. At that time it was agreed there would be a counter-payment by 2008 and that the revenue obtained from the levy on the betting would match what was necessary with regard to the demand for the industry. Unfortunately, the Government in the meantime did not honour that commitment and it reduced the betting levies with the consequences that are seen today. This was very disappointing because at that time there was a goodwill factor towards the industry across the political spectrum and it still exists today.
I come from a constituency which has three racecourses, a greyhound track and some of the biggest stud farms and trainers in Ireland are in my particular area. I want to see that industry develop but I also want to see the views of the racing fraternity being honoured. Their view is that the Government should levy the betting industry to allow the industry continue and develop and to be self-contained. This should be the Minister's policy. The betting levy was proposed in the budget in 2008 and we still have not seen it implemented. The big trainers and stud farms are located in my area but there are also the small ventures training or breeding greyhounds or horses. This is a vital industry.
For whatever reason unknown to me, the Minister for Finance made an error when he did not agree with what had been determined by the committee in 2002, which would have ensured the industry would be self-sufficient now. I have had meetings with Denis Brosnan and Brian Kavanagh and many other people who are very concerned. They still maintain that the original idea in 2002 was the right one and that the funding should be derived by means of levies on the betting industry. That should allow the industry to plan for the future. I would hope the emphasis will placed on this aspect in the Minister's overview of the industry, which is so important particularly in my area. The original 2002 plan was right and I hope the Government will get back on track to have that as the objective for the future of the industry.
I apologise for being late and missing the first part of the Minister's presentation. I come from the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency which is the home of the Mullins family, Jim Bolger and the Hughes family. There is a great racing tradition in the area. Does the Minister believe, as Horse Racing Ireland believes, that the industry could and should be funded from taxation on betting? Would that save the Exchequer a considerable amount? What are the Minister's views on major bookmakers processing their accounts offshore, which has considerable negative effects on the loss of taxation to us in Ireland?
I thank the Minister and apologise for my late attendance. On Deputy White's point, from talking to people in the horseracing industry and sport in general, there is a major issue with offshore and on-line betting which is costing the industry money and costing the State money. That money could be used to fund sport. What are the Minister's plans in that regard? It is an issue that we need to grapple with and address head on. It is wrong to have on-line betting and offshore betting with companies going offshore as a means of sheltering money as opposed to investing the money in Ireland, the State in which the money is generated.
I thank all Members for their support for the horse and greyhound industry. Everybody understands the value of the industry to the country and its ability to promote the best of Ireland internationally. It also gives substantial employment, much of which is rurally based, which has a major impact on creating jobs in areas where it would be very difficult to create other jobs. Members are right in saying it is not about some of the big guys. Contrary to the perception, this affects many small breeders, trainers and owners who help to keep the industry going. We have done a very good job in recent years. Widening the base in horseracing and greyhound racing and the facilities that have been provided have modernised the industry with great success. There has been great expansion of people going to meetings and using the facilities for different reasons. That is as it should be.
I believe that whatever the fund will supply in years to come it will need to come from the industry. We all agree that needs to be the case. The genesis of the fund was based on that. In the earlier years there was no Exchequer contribution and it came entirely from the levies on betting and on racing in general. In recent years there has been an Exchequer contribution. It is very hard to predict the outcome for this year. When we doubled the tax from 1% to 2% the strongly held view from the industry at the time was that it would cover the requirements for the fund this year. We would all accept that economic circumstances have changed and no more than any other industry, this industry is not immune from it. That will pose challenges this year.
The big prize is to put the fund on a multi-annual footing which demonstrates that the funding will come from the industry. That is a major challenge and everybody has identified the obvious substantial leakage to Internet, telephone and offshore betting. This is not easy to get at. I understand that in the United States, as the authorities there could not come up with a solution, it has simply been banned with heavy penalties for engaging in it. The difficulty is that many of the companies that operate such betting are based in other jurisdictions. At least at present we do not have the ability to tax companies from other jurisdictions.
I have spoken to representatives of the industry about the issue. I am convinced that it would be possible with co-operation from the industry to do this very successfully. A minute 0.1% of the offshore betting would more than suffice to put an excellent fund in place every year and put the industry on a strong footing. We need general support and a cohesive message from the industry. It is not good enough for different sections to point the finger at each other. For people to say "Solve it, but it's not my problem" is not helpful.
It is not a solution to impose taxes on the small bookmakers. While they are willing to pay their share they cannot bear funding the industry entirely. The big players will need to come to the plate. A view will need to be formed about Internet and offshore telephone betting. I will use whatever legal levers are available to me to get at that funding in terms of trying to get some tax out of it. While it is not easy, I am determined. If the determination exists across the industry recognising that everybody in the industry will need to play their part to secure the future, we can find a way forward and achieve the outcomes we need.
Deputy Mitchell mentioned show jumping. While it is not related to this fund, it is worth acknowledging there have been difficulties. I would not say that show jumping is finished. The future could be good. Interestingly and ironically, most of the most successful horses at the Olympic Games and in the world championship were Irish bred. Irish breeding in both horseracing and show jumping is very strong. However, at both national and international level those involved in show jumping need to get their act together. I welcome the efforts now being made in that regard because the show jumping sector is also extremely important to the country.
At this point I cannot differentiate what will come from the fund and what the Exchequer might need to put in this year. In the earlier years it was nil. In 2004 the duty provided €66 million and the Exchequer shortfall was €28 million. The following year it was €68 million from the duty and €22 million from the Exchequer. In 2006 it was €70 million from the duty while it was €24 million from the Exchequer. In 2007 it was €73 million from the duty and €18 million from the Exchequer. I hope that the figures would be in that region this year. I cannot give a firm indication that it will be the outcome. Nevertheless, the message from this committee is strongly supportive of the industry. We cannot continue to find normal Exchequer funding to support the industry, which will need to be funded from within its own resources. I fully support that, as does the Government.
A review is ongoing to consider the issues that Deputy Wall and others raised. I know that people can look to their own local areas and feel that other areas are doing better. I am always conscious of ensuring that the funding goes into the regions. That is as mush as I can say at this stage.
Are any steps in train to deal with Internet and offshore betting, which is the big bogey? If that could be sorted effectively it would become self-financing.
We are looking at it in two ways. We are considering our policy in this regard. Important work is being done to examine the legality of this whole area. We are in discussions with the industry and there is an acceptance that it is not sustainable to continue to support this fund from the Exchequer. I am making it clear that will not continue to be the case. Different groups are looking at that at the moment.
I am distressed to hear that the Minister is depending on the goodwill of the industry. Paddy Power uses offshore servers to avoid tax. It would not do that if it was willing to pay tax. Such companies will move out of Ireland altogether if they feel they have to pay tax. Has the Minister contacted Paddy Power and informed it that its goodwill is needed to fund the industry?
Is that what the Minister is looking for?
I would not put it like that. I made the reasonable point that in the case of any industry, one needs to work with it and gets its support for anything one is trying to do. The betting industry will have to make a choice.
Has the Minister spoken to Paddy Power?
I have spoken to people across all sectors of the industry.
Has any progress been made?
We have not yet agreed a formula, to be honest. I am looking at some interesting legal approaches that I might be able to take legislatively. We will see what will come out of that. The betting industry has a vested interest in ensuring that the horseracing industry is vibrant. If the betting industry does not improve, the taxation base of the horseracing industry — the amount of money that is ring-fenced for the fund — will be in grave difficulty in the future. The Exchequer will not be able to provide the funding. The betting industry recognises that it has a vested interest in the quality of the racing product. Its income depends on it.
The extent to which it depends on that is decreasing. There is virtual racing and all sorts of things.
I know. I do not understand that one. We are where we are.
I am interested in what the Minister said about the need for the money to come from within the industry. Can he spell out what he means by that in a more prescriptive manner? He is talking about goodwill and formulas. The square, or circle, does not seem to be completed. What does the Minister mean? There is a crisis of confidence in the horseracing industry. People are genuinely worried about where the industry is going. Should we revert to the old system, whereby the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was responsible for the horseracing industry? With the greatest of respect to all involved, that Department seemed to have a greater appreciation and understanding of the industry and the sport.
The Minister has said that no formula has been agreed. He has spoken tentatively to the different sections within the industry. What will happen if no formula that is compatible to everyone is agreed? What will the Minister do then? Thousands of jobs are at risk. If one talks to people in the industry, one will find that they are genuinely worried. Budgetary moves have been made in respect of stallion fees and betting tax, but what is next?
Can the Minister be a little more prescriptive in what he is saying? It is important that we take action. I appreciate where the Minister is coming from regarding the legalistic side of it, but that is no good for the ordinary person whose job depends on this industry. We need to create confidence. As Deputies White and Upton and others have said, we have not done anything about the loss of moneys through on-line and offshore betting. In simple layman's terms, what does the Minister mean when he says that the money must come from within the sport?
I do not accept that the industry is in crisis. The opposite is the case. The industry is in good fettle. I have had good discussions with representatives of Bord na gCon and Horse Racing Ireland. They have spoken positively about what is happening in the industry. They are pleased with the overall economic situation. They can manage on the funding being provided this year. They are confident that there will be an outcome. The reality is that we cannot levy all the tax on the bookies' offices that are based in this country. It is as simple as that. The reality is that most betting is now offshore. There are choices to be made, and I am making it clear to the industry that we will make those choices.
The ultimate choice would be to ban it. That approach has been taken in America and perhaps it will be taken in other countries as well. However, I do not want to go down that road. I believe there is a means of taking action that receives general support. If the betting industry believes it has a role to play, and if we want funding to be made available from within that industry, it will be easy to find a solution. I have had discussions on these matters. Many discussions are taking place at present. The legal base is being examined, for example. Given the scale of the offshore betting industry, a levy of 0.5% would probably yield between €100 million and €150 million per annum. I would fundamentally disagree with anybody who might suggest that the imposition of a 0.5% rate would be an unfair approach. It is like everything — one has to bring the industry with one. The industry is with me. It is very positive about what we have been doing.
I reject the view that responsibility for the horseracing industry should revert to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I think the industry has changed its mind about that matter. It is an important industry. Deputy Mitchell's comments at the start of this meeting about the impact of the industry on tourism were accurate. I will give an example. The industry worked with Tourism Ireland to bring 13,500 French people to Ireland for a weekend at the dogs. It was a huge success. That initiative is being expanded to Spain, Italy and Austria this year. I think there is another country involved as well. The Tote system has been operating successfully in the Swedish greyhound sector since last year. It is right that the responsibility for the greyhound sector has been given to the Department of Arts, Tourism and Sport. Various synergies are being brought together to expand it in an imaginative way. It is working extremely well. The same thing will probably apply in the case of horseracing. There will be much greater co-ordination between the tourism authorities and this hugely important industry.
Ireland does not have massive natural products. We have a few fabulous products, including the horse and the dog. We have to capitalise on that in every way we can. The breeding sector, which is important, needs to be treated as an industry like the tourism industry, which is of great economic importance for Ireland. These sports have huge tourism implications. All that synergy is beginning to work together. People are starting to understand the industry in a much better way. That would not be happening if it was stuck in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with all due respect, because agricultural issues dominate the day in that Department. The industry is now getting the space it needs. It has found its own level of recognition, in a much fuller and more confident way, since the Department of Arts, Tourism and Sport has been responsible for it.
Before I call Senator O'Sullivan, I ask the Minister to report back to the committee when he has concluded his discussions on the offshore issue.
No problem.
I share the Minister's positive outlook. Attendances at race meetings seem to be quite good. Many Irish horses are being brought to Aintree this week. We had many successes at Cheltenham. Having said that, one of our smaller trainers mentioned on the radio the other day that he and some of his colleagues are having difficulty getting paid by owners. It seems that a number of horses have been turned out of their yards. I have heard rumours to the effect that some of our bigger owners have shed hundreds of horses. Do we have figures for the number of horses in training at present? Do we have comparative figures for this time last year?
I do not have such figures with me. It would be too early in the year to make such an assessment. We will have to see how the year goes. There is no doubt that there is stress in the industry, like everywhere else. That is why it is very important this year to focus on encouraging the small guy to keep his horses in training. It is an incredible achievement for a small country like Ireland that it has become the iconic breeding centre of the world in terms of horses.
Do colleagues have any views on whether the revised regulations should be referred back to the Dáil and the Seanad? Are they happy to accept them?
I suggest that we should refer them back to the Dáil and the Seanad.
The Deputy wants us to refer them back. Do other members have a view?
The Minister has outlined his case and I see no reason the joint committee should not accept it.
Do other members have a view?
Given that a number of members expressed an interest in the issue, perhaps we should refer the matter back.
The Deputy wishes to refer it back to the Dáil and Seanad.
I understand it is referred back to the Dáil under the normal procedure.
The distinction is that Deputy Upton is seeking to have a discussion when it is reported back to the Dáil in the normal fashion.
Yes, that is correct.
It should be discussed in the Dáil.
It should be reported back to allow me to release the funding.
It should be reported back to the Houses without debate.
A number of people have commented the issue to me. As my colleagues appear to be in agreement that we should refer it back, there should be scope for discussion about it.
My only reservation is that the Deputy's proposal would delay the release of funding because the Minister hopes to have the matter accepted today.
While I appreciate the urgency, is it not possible to find time to discuss the matter quickly?
That would be a matter for the Whips.
The difficulty is that we will have the budget next week, followed by the Easter break, and this will create significant uncertainty for the industry.
I understood it was to be reported back to the Dáil on 9 April.
If it is done in the normal way, it must come back into the Dáil. While I have no problem with having some time allowed for the matter to be discussed in the Dáil, provided I can secure time, I do not want to delay beyond Easter as to do so would create all sorts of major problems.
While I appreciate the time constraints, it is important to have an opportunity to express a view on the issue in a debate.
If it is reported back to the Dáil in the normal manner, we can have a chat about it.
We all agree on the need to report back to the Dáil. Deputy Upton, however, is arguing that we need to have a further debate.
The Minister acknowledges that there may be scope for such a debate. Is that correct?
I would have no problem discussing it for an hour or thereabouts on Thursday. However, the budget debate is scheduled to take place next week and I do not know how I will be able to secure time for a debate on this issue. To go beyond Easter would create uncertainty and would be detrimental to the industry. When I spoke to representatives of the industry yesterday they indicated they were pleased that this discussion was taking place today because they believe the matter is urgent. It will be referred back to the Dáil next Thursday. The problem, however, is that the fund is effectively out of money as it has been drawn down in full.
Would it be acceptable to try to sanction the money payment and allow the Minister, at a future date, to bring a report for discussion to both the Dáil and Seanad?
The full review will be a much wider debate.
I hope measures will be introduced in the taxation area.
When will the full review take place?
I hope it will be completed in a few months, at most. We are nearly finished the review.
Will it take place before the summer?
I want to do it before the summer because we need to give certainty to the industry to ensure we know where we are going. That is the debate. This is a technical mechanism to pay the fund whereas the debate will be on the bigger issue.
Are Deputies Upton and Mitchell satisfied with the Minister's response?
Yes.
The Minister has given a commitment to return to the joint committee on this issue.
Yes, there is no difficulty in that respect.
I ask that he does so before the summer.
The clerk has noted that and will contact the Minister about it.