Gamblers’ Government looks after its racing pals, but not the disabled

By Fergus Finlay

You haven't studied it and used it as a model for the management of your own finances? I can't believe it - sure that Bill is a perfect example of how things could be done. And should be done, if only everyone had the wit and imagination of the two principal authors of that dynamic piece of legislation. Well, I suppose I can't blame you if you're not up to speed.

Although it was a really revolutionary piece of legislation, it kind of snuck through the Dail. The debate was full of witty remarks and congratulatory references to Istabraq, Ted and Ruby Walsh, and other legends of the turf. There was no real dissent anywhere in the House, from either left or right.

Which was a bit odd, considering the ground that the Bill was breaking. It did two things really, and neither seemed that exceptional on the face of it. It set up a body called Horse Racing Ireland, which would in future deal largely with the administration of horse racing in this state. And it set up a thing called the 'Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund' for the purpose of giving support to horse and greyhound racing.

No big deal there, you might think. This fund, and the Bill that underpinned it, was the brainchild of two people - first the Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, a keen racing buff anxious to see the industry placed on a sound footing (the tax-free status applied to many forms of livestock income by Charles J Haughey isn't enough, apparently). He was ably supported by his colleague Joe Walsh, also a man to be found at race meetings throughout the country (and abroad, indeed, if his national duty of supporting the industry required him to make that sacrifice).

But what was to be in the fund? These are tough times, after all. We must cut our cloth to suit our measure. Mustn't we? Well, no. That only applies if you're in a queue for healthcare, or if you have a learning disability. Under the racing legislation, every penny collected in betting tax is ploughed straight back in to the sport.

Isn't that great? A guaranteed income. Except there's a problem. The betting tax yield is going down. People are betting on the internet now because you can avoid tax that way. In order to protect the betting industry here, governments have to reduce the rate of tax they will apply. So that will reduce the amount of tax revenue coming in, and therefore that will reduce the amount they will be able to give the industry. So what seemed like a great idea mightn't work after all.

But Charlie and Joe had a solution. They picked the amount of money that was raised in 2000 Ir£46m and they put a formula in place which would guarantee either the amount of tax raised each year, or £46 million increased by the rate of inflation' - whichever was the larger. As Joe said in the Dail debate at the time, "we need to keep the latter as a guarantee as for obvious reasons connected to potentially fast moving changes in the off-course betting market, the rate of excise duty on betting may, at any time in the future, have to be adjusted downward from the current 5% in order to maintain our competitiveness".

So what the Dail was asked to do by these two gentlemen of the turf was to earmark every penny raised in betting tax and plough it back into the industry.

And just in case not enough was raised, the Dail was asked to pass a law which guaranteed the money anyway. If the betting tax didn't cover it, the Exchequer would pay the balance. The only restriction on the money would be that after about 250 million was spent on horse and greyhound racing, the Minister of the day would have to put a regulation before the Dail (they're normally nodded through) to keep it going.

It's not that easy to find out how much the industry got last year. Although the legislation says it should be accounted for by the Department of Agriculture, it has actually been transferred to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. If you look at the Book of Estimates for that department, you'll find it all right 46.35 million in current spending and 21.58 million in capital, making a total of almost exactly 68 million.

Next year (the year of cutbacks everywhere, remember?) the current spending is planned to increase to 55.63 million (that's an increase of exactly 20%), although the capital projects, at 8m, won't be on the same scale. There will only be 8 million in capital.

And do you know the really good news about all this? Well, the really good news is that they were able to raise the prizemoney this year. Total prizemoney for the year was 46 million, an increase of 11% over last year in National Hunt racing and an increase of just over 8% on the flat.

Lo and behold - the exact amount of taxpayers' money they were given, they gave out in prizes. And who did they give the prizes to? How many impoverished, disabled, elderly, poor and infirm horse-race owners and trainers benefited? How many people on the very margins of our society were able to live their lives with a little bit more dignity as a result of all that prizemoney? JP MacManus was one of them; John Magnier was another. And there were many, many more. Thank goodness our money is dedicated by law to such needing and deserving causes.

Why am I telling you all this? Is it because I'm a begrudger who thinks the racing industry shouldn't be supported? No, it isn't. I don't object to the support, because the industry is good for Ireland. It employs thousands of people, and attracts thousands of visitors here. No, I want you to know about the degree to which we support horse racing for this reason.

It proves that we can afford to do the things we feel we should. It proves that we can afford to make choices. And it proves that the people who tell us otherwise are cheating us, day in and day out.

I could have given you other examples. In the last couple of years, Charlie McCreevy has put massive tax incentives in place to support the so-called SSIAs. It's costing hundreds of millions a year. He has put massive tax breaks into the law of the land for people who want to build private luxury hospitals, or student accommodation, or car parks where people can leave their cars to get on buses.

We can afford to do all that and lots, lots more because he and Bertie Ahern tell us we can.

But we can't afford 25 million a year to give people with severe and profound disabilities some basic human dignity. And to give their parents some hope. Telling us we can't afford that is the greatest political lie we have ever been told.