Before the adjournment last week we had reached this amendment and it appeared to me, as a result of a little friendly cross-talk, that the Minister was disposed, if not to full agreement, to some agreement to what is in the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is that entrance fees to bookmakers, who make their living by attending these tracks, shall not exceed five times the charge to the public. The amendment envisages a certain situation. We are aware that there are certain small greyhound tracks in various parts of the country that would never pay their way were it not for the fact that the limited number of bookmakers who attend and do business on those tracks have an agreement with the racetrack owners. In one particular case, some ten bookmakers attend and they pay £2 each per night irrespective of the entrance charge, even if they do not attend the meeting. They do that in order that the racetrack may be economic and that it will be open to them to make their living.
The big tracks in the City of Dublin earn a substantial margin of profit from the heavy entrance charge to bookmakers. In the case of Shelbourne Park, it is well known that the entrance charge to the bookmaker to-day is 32/- although the entrance charge to the public is 3/6. Obviously, in the case of the small country track, an arrangement such as suggested in the amendment might possibly involve loss and it is suggested that the board be empowered, if satisfied that the loss has accrued from the acceptance of the amendment, to give a grant to the particular track out of its overall income.
The amounts involved in the case of the small country track that I speak of will not be very big. On the other hand, the fair treatment of the large number of bookmakers in the big areas must be taken into account. There must be some equity. In the case of some racetracks—one in particular— this 32/- entrance charge is of recent arrangement and some people believe that it was in anticipation of this Bill. I would ask the Minister to accept what is regarded as reasonable in other forms of sport. In the case of horse racing, this is enshrined in the Racing Act. What I am asking him to do is to accept the amendment which will ensure that no bookmaker will be charged more than five times the entrance charge to the public and, where it can be shown that a loss has accrued to a particular country track, the board will have power to give a grant to make good that loss.
The Minister may have had an opportunity of getting further advice from his officials as a result, possibly, of his direction to them to examine it further. I said on Second Reading and I say again—it is very relevant to this particular amendment — that I believe, in the case of the City of Dublin, where, certainly, the tote will be installed in both racetracks, that the added attraction of the tote will mean increased attendance, which means increased gate money, apart from the operations on the tote. I am convinced — and I have made inquiries and have discussed this matter with people who should know — that a definite increase in attendance will occur.
We have to be reasonable in our approach. The bookmakers will pay another form of levy to the board. In other words, they will pay a levy for a certain period of years, at least until the tote produces enough revenue to pay for itself. If the position remains as it is, in addition to these very heavy entrance charges, they will be asked to subsidise something that will be in competition with them. I think the Minister will see that point. This amendment asks for equity. If the Minister does not accept the amendment as drafted I should like him to say that he is prepared to give some undertaking that the protection that we seek will be enshrined in the Bill. If he does so, we can deal with it again on Report Stage.
There is no need for us to argue across the House as if we were concerned about personalities. We are only concerned with justice and fair play.
This amendment is related to Section 48. Section 48 deals with the levies and the other possible forms of charge. I mentioned on Second Stage that if this "five times" charge as a ceiling were agreed then it might be better, in view of the levy, to say that, whatever the charge is to the bookmaker for entrance, a similar amount could be extracted from him as a contribution to the board — in other words, that if the entrance to one part of the track in Dublin is 3/6, which, multiplied by five makes 17/6, each bookmaker will also pay 17/6 towards the cost of the board.
I should like at this stage also to suggest to the Minister that some consideration should be given to the State revenue point of view. I should like the Minister to note that if I pay 3/6 entrance charge, the racetrack company must extract 9d. entertainment tax, but if a bookmaker pays 32/6 the State still gets only 9d. of that. There seems to be something illogical in that. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about approaching matters logically.
I shall not say much more on this matter at the moment but would sum up in this way: I ask the Minister to agree as far as this section is concerned that no racetrack shall be entitled to charge a bookmaker more than five times the entrance fee, except in cases where it can be shown that a loss has occurred to the racetrack, and it can only occur in a small country place. All it will do in Dublin is to cut down the margin of profit, which I say will be regained by the added attendances and by the additional sale of programmes which, I believe, produce very substantial revenue at the moment. Will the Minister accept that?
