Committee on Finance. - Greyhound Industry Bill, 1955—Committee Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (15th Dáil) – Tuesday, 30 Oct 1956

Committee on Finance. - Greyhound Industry Bill, 1955—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment to Section 39:—

23c.—Every person aggrieved by the refusal of the board under Section 38 of this Act to grant him a licence to act as an auctioneer shall have a right of appeal to the Circuit Court from the decision of the board. —(Deputy MacEntee.)

Mr. O'Malley

I should like to ask the Minister if he intends accepting the amendment.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

I explained the other night that I would meet the Deputy in respect of amendments Nos. 23a and 23b, but not in respect of 23c.

Mr. O'Malley

It is analogous to one before the House before the Dáil broke up last July and in respect of which the Minister suggested that such matters were not strictly subjects for either the District Court or the Circuit Court. He suggested that an ad hoc tribunal should be appointed to be presided over by a lawyer of at least ten years' standing, together with three independent members. Am I to understand in connection with this amendment——

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps I should clarify this. I can meet the Deputy part of the way here. I think we can adopt a procedure here where, if an auctioneer is refused a permit, he would be given seven days' notice during which period he would be entitled to make representations. In the event of the refusal being maintained he would get a right of appeal to an ad hoc tribunal similar to that provided for in a previous section dealing, I think, with bookmakers. If the Deputy withdraws the amendment on that understanding I undertake to introduce an amendment along those lines on Report Stage.

Mr. O'Malley

While we agree that circumstances such as disputes in greyhound racing are not, as the Minister has said, matters for a District Court or a Circuit Court, nevertheless this amendment deals with a man's livelihood and as such we feel that a court of competent jurisdiction should decide the issues involved. We feel further that if a man gets an auctioneer's licence as an M.I.A.A., de facto he should be a person of the highest integrity, having been accepted by that professional body.

Therefore, we feel that it is not only to an ad hoc tribunal that the aggrieved party should have the right of appeal; we feel he should have the right of appeal to a judicial body—that he should have the right of bringing his case to the Circuit Court. After all, it could happen, and possibly might happen, that an auctioneer or a firm of auctioneers or various auctioneers who have been in the industry and who have conducted sales of greyhounds, could be turned down for some reason or another. We feel that an ad hoc tribunal might not strictly give the same hearing and the same rights as the Circuit Court judge would. We further feel it is only common justice to allow such a man the right of appeal to such a judicial body.

On behalf of Deputy MacEntee, I move amendment No. 23 (d):—

Before Section 39 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 38, the board shall set up a register of recognised auctioneers, who shall be entitled to conduct public sales of greyhounds.

(2) Any person or firm holding an auctioneer's licence and who is a member of the Irish Auctioneers' Association shall be entitled to be inscribed in the register set up under sub-section (1) of this section.

(3) An application to be inscribed in the register as aforesaid shall be made in a form prescribed by regulation of the board and shall be accompanied by the prescribed application fee.

(4) The board shall have power to prescribe the fee to be lodged with the application to be inscribed in the register set up under sub-section (1) of this section and shall also have power to prescribe an annual renewal fee in respect of the inscription therein.

(5) The board, after an inquiry, of which due notice shall have been given to the auctioneer concerned, shall have power to remove from the register the name of any person who it is satisfied has been guilty of a breach of a regulation made under Section 38.

This matter was referred to, not in great detail, on the last occasion. Would the Minister let us have his views?

Mr. Dillon

I think this amendment is an alternative to amendment No. 23c. I think, inasmuch as I have sought to meet the Deputy in respect of the subject matter of amendments Nos. 23a, 23b and 23c, it provides a suitable alternative to the proposal in amendment No. 23d, which is designed to prevent a licensed auctioneer from being capriciously refused a licence to auction greyhounds.

Mr. O'Malley

It goes further than that. Sub-section (1) provides:—

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 38, the board shall set up a register of recognised auctioneers, who shall be entitled to conduct public sales of greyhounds."

There is one point in that connection and we should be glad to hear the Minister's views on the matter. There are firms of auctioneers which have been in existence for a considerable period. Are these people to be deprived now of what was possibly a source of livelihood to them down through the years? Amendment No. 23c provides:

"Every person aggrieved by the refusal of the board under Section 38 of this Act to grant him a licence to act as an auctioneer shall have a right of appeal to the Circuit Court from the decision of the board."

No; I will not agree to this amendment. However, I believe the substance of this amendment is met by the degree of agreement we have arrived at in respect of amendments Nos. 23a, 23b and 23c. As I understand it, this amendment was put down as a possible alternative, if I had indicated to the House that I was not able to meet the Deputy in respect of amendment No. 23c. Inasmuch as I have been able to come nine-tenths of the way to meet him in respect of amendment No. 23c, I do not think amendment No. 23d is necessary and I do not believe it would be pressed by Deputy MacEntee, if he were present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 39 agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Question proposed: "That Section 40 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Malley

This section is directly concerned with Section 20 which gives the board the right to obtain a totalisator licence. Section 20 provides that the board may apply for and hold a totalisator licence. The Minister might be good enough to clarify certain points which have been brought to the attention of various Deputies. I understand that—these are the regulations, now, dealing with the operation of the totalisator—one point will be dealt with by the Minister at the Report Stage either by a new section or an amendment to be introduced by him, that is, that credit betting as carried on by Tote Investors, Limited, will not be allowed under this Bill. That would dispose of that point. I think the Minister has already given that undertaking.

Mr. A. Barry

But the Deputy knows there is a good deal of credit betting with bookmakers?

Mr. O'Malley

Yes; that was brought out, but it is much easier to get credit on horse racing from the tote than from the bookmakers who are as wide as a gate.

Mr. A. Barry

I think you will get only one week.

Mr. O'Malley

All I can say is that the tote investors are much more random than the bookmakers. The bookmakers, it being a personal business with them, usually know their clients and the extent to which they will allow them credit. It would clear up the point very much, and save the trouble of bringing in amendments on other sections, if the Minister would let us know if he has been impressed by the arguments against credit betting and if he will, in fact, be prepared to introduce a ministerial amendment which will bring into this Bill the fact that tote credit betting is ruled out completely and that no licence will be issued to any person or persons, or body.

The reason I press the Minister so strongly on this is that if the Minister desires to have a free vote on this measure, it is quite possible that the amendment might not be carried, due to the absence of certain members. If a member of the House knows that there is a free vote and that there is no compulsion on him to vote, he may not be here to vote. He may have no interest in greyhounds. We maintain that this is not a matter which the Minister should dismiss lightly. The Minister evidently has been impressed by Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Finlay and other speakers on the Government side, who said that if there was a free vote, they would come in with Deputy Briscoe. Would the Minister be prepared to bring in his ministerial amendment and not mind his free vote?

Mr. Dillon

The answer is no.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want to hold up the House unduly and I have to apologise that I was not here earlier. There has been such a lot of tip and run——

Mr. Dillon

Damn the little run there has been about it.

Mr. MacEntee

I must say the Minister has not done very much running. He has dug his heels in, irrespective of the logic and good sense of the arguments advanced on this side. We have not made a good deal of progress, to be quite fair to him, until the last week. I would like the Minister on a matter of seriousness and public policy touching the social welfare of the people, to make up his mind and to give the Dáil a definite lead in this matter. I think that the report of the committee which I set up in 1932 to consider this matter, is fairly conclusive and that facilities for credit betting should not be further enlarged. The law still is that if a bookmaker extends credit in respect of a wager, he cannot recover it in law. I think that is the law and I think there are good social reasons why the principle should have been adopted. We wish to extend the principle a little further, to the extent of saying to the Government that facilities for credit betting should not be given, particularly on dogs.

One might ask why facilities for betting and credit on the totalisator at racecourses should be allowed while denying it to the greyhound racetracks. I think the answer to that is this. First of all, those race-meetings do not occur with any considerable frequency and certainly it is not easy in most cases for a person to go to a race-meeting if it is any distance from his home. But, as far as the larger cities are concerned, these tracks are readily accessible to the people in the evening and, in fact, I think that during the season there is a greyhound racing-meeting practically every night of the week. If, in addition to the normal inducement there is to make a cash bet with a bookmaker or the totalisator, we are to facilitate people in making bets on credit, I can see that we may—I am not going to be too definite about it—create a very great social evil indeed.

I would press the Minister that, so far as totalisator credit betting is concerned, he should set his face against it and should give the House a definite lead. I gather from what Deputy O'Malley was saying when I came in that the Minister has suggested leaving it to a free vote of the House. If the Minister would definitely make it a matter of Government policy, I think it would be in the public interest to do that. If he would say that he would not facilitate credit betting on the totalisator at greyhound racing tracks, I think he would be doing a good day's work and I would be very grateful to him if he could see his way to do that.

Mr. Dillon

I would direct Deputies' attention to the discussion which took place and is recorded in Volume 154, No. 6, 23rd February, which extends from column 880 to column 980. It was debated at that great length when I explained fully that I did not regard this as a matter of principle, that I felt there were cogent arguments which had in fact been put from both sides of the House, and that I suggested to Deputies we should peruse this discussion carefully between now and the Report Stage, that I would put down no amendment, but that if anyone wanted to put down an amendment I would be delighted to have a free vote and that, if there was a free vote, I personally would vote against prohibiting credit betting, but that I would fully understand the outlook of a colleague who voted in the opposite sense. But as no question of principle arose, I did not think it was proper for the Government to put down an amendment. That is the position to-day.

Deputy MacEntee might not agree with that but I can only urge on him that if I concede to him his right to hold his view he should concede to me my right to hold my view. I am not trying to impose any view on him and he should not try to impose a view on me. I would be quite prepared to leave it to the wisdom of our colleagues because I believe no issue of principle is here involved.

Mr. MacEntee

It is all very well to say that the Minister will leave it to a free vote of the House if he immediately indicates that he is going to direct the whole weight of his influence against——

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to influence anybody.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister is over modest. After all, a mere indication of view on the part of the Minister will certainly carry a great deal of weight, particularly with his own side of the House. Quite frankly, I am put in this situation that, when we were discussing this Bill during the summer recess, I had come to the conclusion that it was not worth while putting down amendments, particularly when the Minister already indicated his point of view. Since the matter has been mentioned, however, and the Minister will leave it bona fide to a free decision of the House, I cannot see how he can undo what he has already done.

I am merely trying to find a way out of a situation in which, I think, a great deal of harm, a great deal of social harm, will be done if credit betting is allowed on the totalisator at greyhound racing tracks. I was going to suggest, but it seems to me it would be almost quite illogical, that if the Minister would refrain from voting or speaking against an amendment which will be put down on the Report Stage, we might get a definite decision of the House on it. I frankly confess I may have done the Minister an injustice. After he had expressed himself so strongly in regard to this matter and had indicated the line he was going to take, it seemed to be a futile and hopeless proceeding to put down an amendment. However, in order that the matter may be tested and in order that a definite record may be made, I propose to put down an amendment on the Report Stage to the effect that no facilities will be allowed on greyhound racing tracks for what are known as totalisator credits.

That cannot prevent a bookmaker from extending credit if he wishes but his debt is not recoverable in law. I do not know what the position would be in relation to what are known as credit investors. I think, in view of the circumstances by which they operate under totalisator licences, perhaps their debts might be in quite a different situation. I do not know. That would be a matter for the lawyer to argue. I have indicated what I think the position is. I believe it is generally, regarded outside, by those concerned with the social welfare of our people, as a very regrettable thing that the Minister should be prepared to grant facilities for credit betting on greyhound racing tracks.

Mr. Morrissey

It is a case against a free vote that the Deputy is making now.

Mr. Allen

The Minister appreciates that people may vote against that provision for wider, more important and more far-reaching reasons than their own personal reasons. I was shocked when it was shown to the Minister what the effects are certain to be. The totalisator will reach the small greyhound tracks in time. The totalisator may be brought around in a big van from one track to another. That is the intention. That has been discussed already and it will be a matter of a year or two until the totalisator is on every greyhound track.

I am sure the Minister does not need further arguments to convince him. He should consult the Minister for Justice or some of the other Ministers charged with other types of responsibility. He should visit some of the provincial towns where there are racetracks and consult the traders as to the amount of money lost by betting that would otherwise be spent on the families. I suppose there is no use in having greyhound races if there is not betting. As in the case of horse racing, betting is part and parcel of the game. As extra encouragement for betting, this is very bad, especially for the section who go to dog races to enjoy an evening off. I am sure Deputy O'Leary appreciates that in certain towns he knows very well many families have gone hungry because of excessive betting on the part of the head of the family. I have heard of numbers of cases. The Minister would do well to get the advice of the people who investigate matters for him as to what has happened in the case of a great number of families as a result of betting.

Mr. O'Malley

It is stated in Section 40 that the board may make regulations. I would refer the Minister to the Totalisator Act, 1929. Section 20 of this Bill states that the board may apply for and hold a totalisator licence. According to the interpretation section, a totalisator licence means a licence granted under the Totalisator Act, 1929. Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Totalisator Act, 1929, states that the Minister may attach to any totalisator licence such restrictions and conditions as he shall think fit, but no such condition or restriction shall be of any effect, unless the same is set out in the licence. Section 6 of that Act says that the Minister may, by Order, make regulations for controlling and regulating the setting up, maintenance, and working of totalisators under totalisator licences.

That is a very important matter, because, in my opinion, there are certain sections of this Bill that are not merely superfluous but are not correct until a section of the Totalisator Act of 1929 is repealed. I attach great importance to sub-section (5) of Section 4 of that Act. I will read it slowly:—

"The Minister may attach——

I agree that he may not attach.

"——to any totalisator licence such restrictions and conditions as he shall think fit...."

The important words, in my opinion, are:—

"but no such condition or restriction shall be of any effect unless the same is set out in the licence."

The Minister does not deal in this section with the fact that any condition or restriction shall not be effective unless set out in the licence. This section suggests that the board may obtain certain powers, but I maintain that the Totalisator Act of 1929 is the governing Act and, therefore, the Minister has no power, in Section 40, to give to the board certain powers and authority to make regulations and rules which in fact are vested solely in the Minister for Finance.

A totalisator licence having been given to the board, certain conditions may or may not be imposed, and, if certain restrictions or conditions are imposed in the licence, they are enforceable. If the Minister gives the licence without any restrictions, he is authorising the board to make these regulations. I do not know whether or not the Minister agrees with the point I am trying to make. I am trying to point out that there appears to be no tie-up, good, bad or indifferent, between the Act of 1929 and the sections in this Bill. They are scattered all over the Bill. Section 20 deals with the grant of a totalisator licence. Section 23 (3) (d) deals with the conditions as to permitting the board to set up, maintain and work totalisators. Then we come to Section 40 which deals with regulations in relation to totalisators. It is a whole-time job to correlate all the sections dealing with the tote. I again ask the Minister to try to group all these sections dealing with the totalisator in one section, so that we may have a clear picture. Will the Minister let us know if he will look into the points I have mentioned?

Mr. Dillon

I believe the Deputy's apprehension to be groundless, but I shall, of course, have these representations most carefully examined.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps the Minister would say what is contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 40:—

"Different regulations may be made under this section in relation to different totalisators."

Must not these regulations be made in accordance with the conditions attached to the licence by the Minister for Finance? I am drawing the Minister's attention to it because he may like to look into it between now and Report Stage. I can think that some difficulties might arise there.

Mr. Dillon

I will have the point examined, but as far as I know the object is to ensure that the conditions obtaining in the different tracks will be borne in mind when the regulations are being made. In some tracks, you might have a permanent installation whereby certain regulations would be appropriate. In another track, there might be only a temporary installation and some flexibility is here introduced to enable the board to make appropriate regulations for the circumstances in which the totalisator is operating at each course. I will have the question the Deputy raises examined.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 41.

Question proposed: "That Section 41 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacEntee

This section says:—

"(1) The board may co-operate with and assist any person in connection with activities for the promotion and development of the export trade in greyhounds, including activities for the maintenance, training, racing, coursing and sale abroad of greyhounds which have been exported."

I wonder could the Minister give us any idea as to the type of activity he anticipates the board will engage in, or is this merely a sort of umbrella provision to enable them to do almost anything they like? I think the Minister will agree this is a provision which would confer on the board very far-reaching powers. Therefore, so that the Dáil will not allow something to go through, of the consequences of which it is not fully aware, the Minister might perhaps give us some information.

Mr. Dillon

I would direct the Deputy's attention to the fact that our agreement of a previous day relates to sub-section (3) of this section and brings the sections under the general proviso that, where a penalty attaches to a breach of the regulation, no regulation will be made under the section except such regulation is laid upon the Table of the House and is thus brought to the attention of the House and is susceptible of cancellation.

Mr. MacEntee

That makes it much less objectionable. I can see that.

Mr. Dillon

That is the first part of the section to which I would direct the Deputy's attention. I would then refer the Deputy to paragraph 175, page 76, of the Advisory Committee's Report which reads:—

"... The question now arises as to why, in view of the outstanding performances of Irish bred dogs, the export trade has declined so steeply since 1948. We believe that the falling off was due partly to the conditions prevailing in Great Britain from 1948 onwards and referred to in paragraph 170, but we feel satisfied that certain malpractices in connection with sales here contributed to the decline."

On pages 80 and 81, paragraph 184 of the report states:—

"... We would draw attention in this connection to a proposal made to us by a member of E.C.A. in Ireland, who suggested that Córas Tráchtála Teoranta, recently set up to encourage dollar exports, might in liaison with the Control Board, act as a central purchasing agency for greyhounds, i.e., that through its agents it should purchase likely dogs from Irish breeders, at prices based on ruling market values here. Under this arrangement, agents would be employed in U.S.A. to maintain and train Irish dogs until such time as the dogs could record public performances on U.S.A. tracks. The U.S.A. agents would then advertise the merits of the dogs and subsequently sell them.

Paragraph 185, page 81, states:—

"... Notwithstanding certain obvious difficulties which would arise in implementing this E.C.A. proposal, we feel that it is deserving of consideration by the control board, inasmuch as the central agency would be in a position virtually to guarantee sales and would therefore probably succeed in re-establishing the reputation of Irish dogs in U.S.A. ... We feel that the control board, acting with or through any suitable agency, should make every possible effort to expand sales to that country and indeed to any other hitherto unexplored markets. Notwithstanding this, we reiterate our belief that the easily accessible cross-Channel market will in the future, as in the past, receive the bulk of our exports, and the attention of the board will, for some time at least, be fully occupied in regulating exports to that market."

It was on foot of these recommendations that power was introduced designed to enable the board to co-operate with Córas Tráchtála Teo., or to co-operate with dealers who would be concerned to explore foreign markets to help them to secure the market and maintain it.

At an earlier discussion we had here to-day, Deputy Aiken pressed the view strongly that, where you had small units of an industry, it was a good thing to encourage them to combine for the purpose of selling, and in that connection he was urging in respect of small bacon curers and even medium bacon curers that they would be exhorted to associate themselves into co-ops. so that they could reduce their expenses and, for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the community as a whole, set up an export market organisation.

The object of Section 41 is to authorise the board to help people to that end in respect of greyhounds, where that is desirable, but not to impose a duty on them because I want to direct the attention of the House to this fact: while it may be eminently desirable to help groups of relatively inexperienced dealers to exploit a new market of this kind, it would be folly, in my opinion, in a business of this character to forbid an experienced trader who had an intimate knowledge of a foreign market from trading there because he might have special skills which he had acquired over long experience and which he would be most reluctant to share with a competitor. Subject to no action being taken calculated to reflect on the industry as a whole, I think such operators should be allowed to do their business freely. At the same time, I do not think the board should be precluded from helping others who want their help in order the better to organise some foreign market where demand exists or could be created for the kind of dogs we have to sell.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 42

Question proposed: "That Section 42 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacEntee

Is it really necessary to give the board this power to equip and maintain greyhound racetracks? Hitherto, that has been a matter that has been preserved to private enterprise, and it has been availed of to a limited extent. Why is it necessary to provide additional tracks? Generally if there has been an opening for a greyhound racetrack anywhere, it has usually been availed of. Indeed many people have been too optimistic as to the extent to which these openings actually existed. I really cannot see how it is either necessary or desirable for the board to establish its own racetracks. Take the City of Dublin. There are two racetracks and there might have been three, if it had not been for the fact that the third was not allowed to operate properly. But is there any need to establish an additional track in, say, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, or Tralee, or in any of the towns where tracks already exist? In regard to those towns where there are no tracks, is there any real justification for the board going in and starting a track?

It seems to me undesirable to confer on the board the powers sought by the Minister in Section 42.

Mr. Dillon

It is very hard to say that there is any likelihood of the board using the powers conferred upon it by this section and, generally, I would be inclined to agree with Deputy MacEntee's view that it is highly unlikely the board should find it necessary to do so. But the Racing Board has power to do this and I think that power was put in, in case a situation arose in which it would be desirable to retain, or maintain, a racetrack which otherwise might peter out. The best analogy that occurs to my mind is the general power that we have under the Dairy Disposals Board. To my personal knowledge, very valuable enterprises would have collapsed, really through ineffective management, if successive Ministers for Agriculture had not the right to invoke the assistance of the Dairy Disposals Board to go in and remedy the situation.

I do not expect that this proposed board is likely to set up new tracks. I do not rule out the possibility though where a useful track is operating from the point of view of the industry and is threatened with extinction as a result of bad management, or some untoward development that makes its continued operation under private control impossible, of the board taking over such a track, operating it, putting it back on its own feet and then exercising its rights under sub-section (3) to lease the track to a suitable body of local men who want to carry it on or, in the alternative, if they become satisfied as a result of their experience, that the track will not survive, winding it up and exercising their powers under sub-section (4) to dispose of the land they had been using.

Mr. Allen

The powers given in this section could be operated in a very far-reaching manner. All the tracks at the moment are owned by private individuals or private companies. Generally, these companies are limited liability companies.

Mr. O'Malley

There is one exception.

Mr. Allen

There may be one exception. The section says:—

"The board may establish, equip and maintain greyhound racetracks, and for this purpose may acquire by agreement or lease any land ..."

It is quite possible to visualise a situation in which the board may fall out with the management of an existing racetrack and may set up a rival track in a nearby town. They will have power to do that under this section, with the object, I suppose, of wiping out an existing track. I do not say that that is likely to happen, but it can happen; they will have power to establish, equip and maintain greyhound racetracks.

Greyhound racing is an entirely different matter from horse racing. We know that, since the Racing Board was set up, a number of new tracks have been established where they were considered to be absolutely necessary. Every centre in the country that requires a greyhound racetrack, or is able to maintain one, is already provided with such a track. Why, then, should the Dáil be asked to give power to a board to establish new tracks or even acquire existing ones? The board could help financially if the tracks found themselves in financial difficulties.

A track, like any other private business, will try to sell its property to some other group if it is in financial difficulty. If there is mismanagement the track is bound to go bankrupt. But there is no reason why another set of private individuals, who are more competent, should not be allowed to acquire that track rather than give power to the board to acquire it. There would be some sense in this section if the Minister gave power to the board to help tracks. It is, however, proposed to give power to the board to establish other tracks and to hold that over the heads of owners all the time if such owners do not toe the line and do as the board asks. I hope the Minister will see fit to withdraw this section altogether. It is no advantage to the Bill. Indeed, it is a very dangerous section to have in the Bill.

Another thing is that the board could acquire a monopoly in the ownership of racetracks. That could happen under this Bill. I think that would be most undesirable. We already have monopolies in milling and other directions. The public protest against these monopolies. If this section is allowed to go through in its present form, the public may equally well have cause to protest against the Greyhound Racing Board owning all the racetracks. I do not think such ownership would make for efficiency. We might have a board of civil servants running the industry. Many objections could be made to that. I suggest this section should not be allowed to pass in its present form. The Minister should agree to withdraw the giving of such a power to the board. Instead, he should make provision for the board to help financially those tracks which require financial assistance to equip themselves or for some other purpose.

Mr. O'Malley

This side of the House will definitely challenge a division on this section.

Mr. O'Leary

They have no quorum. The Deputy does not want a quorum.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy O'Leary has not a clue as to what this Bill is about. I heard his previous interruptions on this Bill and they were equally irrelevant. This section proposes to give power to the board to establish greyhound tracks: "The board may establish, equip and maintain greyhound racetracks, and for this purpose may acquire by agreement or lease any land (including any greyhound racetrack)." No fairminded person could possibly agree to that section as it stands.

I trust that I shall convince the Minister of the injustice of the whole section. The Minister will recall that Section 23 gave power to the board to grant greyhound racing track licences under certain conditions. We on this side of the House fail to see why, if the board feels that a greyhound track should be set up in any specific area, that track could not be organised by local people under Section 23.

If the Minister were in opposition, he would be the first to roar and scream about the abuse of the rights of individuals, the grabbing by semi-State bodies of rights which would be exercised more beneficially and, possibly, more effectively and efficiently by private enterprise. Here we have the Minister for Agriculture, the great exponent of private enterprise, giving the State, through a semi-State body, very dictatorial powers.

What can the effect of this section be? This section, like a lot of sections in this Bill, is permissive, the most appalling type of legislation that could be envisaged. The Minister tries to get out of the difficulty by saying, for example, that the word "may" means that they may never. What is the result of this appalling section which he wants this House to accept?

First of all, we are not in the position in which the Minister says we are. For some reason or another, the board may decide that a greyhound track should be constructed in a certain place where, possibly, greyhound racing has not been carried on, or elsewhere where the people might acquire a track and run it themselves. What will the effect be? I do not want to attribute any sinister motives to any of these sections, but I can see a hidden hand somewhere in this section and the Minister would be the first to object if he were on this side of the House.

The Minister and the House ought to understand what they are voting for or against. The section gives to the board the right, say, to start a third track in Dublin to-morrow morning, or a second track in Limerick, or to take over one of the existing Dublin tracks or any existing track in the country. The Minister might say that perhaps it would be a good thing; that some of these tracks might not be efficiently or economically run. If that were the case, what would happen? What would happen is that this semi-millionaire board, which is exactly what it will turn out to be, having regard to the amount of the levies collected, not to talk about the assets of the Irish Coursing Club, would acquire a new track in Dublin.

Then what will happen? The board can spend an unlimited amount of money. It can put up the best tracks in the world, provide lounges, grandstands and make the track so attractive in fact that other tracks in Dublin and elsewhere throughout the country will be held up to ridicule and shame. A certain type of person will go to this track who will possibly not go to other tracks because he has not the same facilities and the same encouragement will not be there. Here we have a semi-State body competing with private enterprise.

The Minister may say that this will only happen in certain eventualities. Is the Minister aware that the Irish Coursing Club have a track of their own at the present time which they run very effectively? As I say, if this board ran this track, it would be a very serious matter. We could have a board, if that was the intention, controlled by the Irish Coursing Club. Surely, the Irish Coursing Club would be prejudiced and biased if it were suggested to the board that a greyhound track would be set up in a certain area. In the first place, the board would probably ask whether that would not injure them or their existing interests. They might say that Limerick, or Thurles, or even Dublin would be a very good place to set up a track. They might say that this was not their idea, but a recommendation of the advisory committee's which, of course, in actual fact, it was not.

At the bottom of paragraph 55 of the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Greyhound Racing Industry it is stated:—

"Apart from these 20 tracks which are licensed by the Irish Coursing Club and operate under Irish Coursing Club rules, a limited number of unlicensed ‘flapper' tracks operate in different parts of the country."

In paragraph 56 at the bottom of page 24 of the same report, the following occurs:—

"Severe criticism was expressed by many witnesses of the manner in which the standing committee in recent years handled the question of the licensing of new tracks."

"Severe criticism" was offered. Mark you, that is the very body which will be the new board and is to all intents and purposes this new control board. The paragraph goes on to say:—

"A rule in the club's constitution reads:—‘No new greyhound racing company shall be accepted for affiliation within an approximately 50 mile radius, by main road, of an existing affiliated track in the area, without the consent of such affiliated company.'"

It goes on to say:—

"Existing tracks therefore have what amounts to a right of veto on the licensing of new tracks and as the Standing Committee, as at present constituted, is heavily weighted in favour of existing track interests, it follows that there is a risk that applications for licences for new tracks may not always be considered solely on their merits."

Could Deputies suggest that this new board would be unbiased and impartial? I repeat that it is members of the Irish Coursing Club who will be in control of the board and the board now looks for the right to start a track. We all know what happened in Clare. The capital of Clare is Ennis, but it did not suit certain vested interests to have a greyhound track in Ennis. Galway is not 50 miles away. What happened? Unfortunate people interested in greyhound racing in Clare lost their money by opening a greyhound track in what one might call a seaside resort. That was the only condition under which they could get a licence. Could anyone visualise going to Kilrush or Kilkee, when Ennis, the centre of population of Clare, is the logical place and proper location and where a track would have proved to be an economic proposition? But these gentlemen would not give a licence. It would interfere with their existing interests.

In Section 23, we have the board empowered to give new greyhound racing track licences. We all agree with that and to attach certain conditions to the licences. How any person could agree to this section which would allow the board either to take over a track—that might not be too bad—or to start in opposition to an existing track—that is the rub—is beyond me. That is the serious implication of this section.

As I said, the board may start this new track and equip it. It may be the best track in the world. They can put unlimited money into it and operate it under Section 2 of this Bill, maintain it, or they may afterwards lease the greyhound track, or, as the Minister says, they may sell it. What position will we have then? Why was this section brought in? The position would be that we would have a track owned by the Greyhound Racing Board. Surely one does not want to know a lot about greyhound racing to see immediately the abuses open to such procedure. We agree thoroughly with the licensing of the tracks, but let us suppose they had opened a track in Dublin by to-morrow morning. You then have this new fully equipped track, with money no object. There would be directors of this track, racing managers and stewards. Take the directors. This track is owned by the new greyhound board and there is only one man on that board who is debarred from becoming a director of this semi-State track and that is the chairman, because, as far as I remember, under the terms of his appointment, he can have no connection with greyhound racing or any matter pertaining to the greyhound industry.

In this Greyhound Racing Board consisting of seven members, we have six who can be appointed directors of the board's new track. Where will this lead? The board, as we know already, has the power to make regulations for the totalisator and we have already assumed the third track built in Dublin, with lunch-rooms or tea-rooms and bars, and perhaps swimming pools, with everything to attract custom. Thousands of people are going there whenever racing is held and that could be every night—the board also has that power—and apart from the point that they might close other existing tracks, we would then have a track with the members of the Greyhound Racing Board in full control, with very substantial salaries.

This is no figment of my imagination. The analogy is there in the case of the Irish Coursing Club, the people who are to be on the control board. That is why we are objecting to the section, so as not to let them put their hands on a greyhound racetrack, not to let them even acquire an existing track. The Minister himself has been at all times the exponent and champion of private enterprise. As I said previously, he would scream and roar at us if we brought in this section. He would say it was repugnant to the Constitution. Only to-day I was reading what the Minister said on this sort of thing when he stated that those who suffered State interference in matters affecting the livelihood they had enjoyed down through the years, should be compensated, and that only as a last resort should they be interfered with.

I have no brief for any of the owners of the existing tracks in Dublin or anywhere else and I have nothing to say to them. But I would say—and they have come in for a fair amount of criticism here—that they have certain rights. Do people realise that, if this section was passed, it could sound the death knell of Shelbourne Park and Harold's Cross? It might mean the end of the employment given to the staff of these places and of the sales that take place there, and of all the business enjoyed by the firms or shops in the vicinity of these tracks. The Minister may pooh-pooh this idea, but if he does, why does he not strike out the section—"The board may establish, equip and maintain...."

Is the board going to skimp anything in what they do? Paragraph 57, on page 25, of the advisory committee said:—

"We are of opinion that the control board which we envisage as having charge of the conduct of greyhound racing in future, should examine thoroughly the licensing of tracks possibly with a view to a slight increase in the number of licensed tracks and with a view to the compulsory closing down of unlicensed tracks."

Again, they suggested in view of the evidence that was given to them, that there were grounds in certain cases for having new tracks, but nowhere do they advocate this control of a track by the board itself.

The report goes further and says:—

"In regard to the licensing of new tracks, some witnesses expressed the view that the establishment of a third track in the Dublin area would be justifiable."

That is more of it. The greyhound board, when they make their annual report to the Minister and to this House, can say: "Acting on the advice of the Advisory Committee, we have deemed it proper in the interests of the sport and the industry to set up a third track in Dublin."—I only pick out Dublin at random—"This is in accordance with the report on the greyhound industry made by the committee set up by the Minister."

The Advisory Committee Report continues:—

"One of the reasons advanced in this connection——"

That is, in connection with the third track in Dublin—

"——was that owners of dogs have at times to wait several weeks before they succeed in getting an entry accepted on either of the existing Dublin tracks."

Witness after witness pointed out that unless "they were well in"—these were the words used at the inquiry, whatever they may mean—with certain people at the greyhound tracks, they could be kept waiting for as much as two or three months for a race for their dog. We know that the average life at best of a racing greyhound is three or four years and in the fourth year he is getting on. Two and a half years is the usual period. If an owner has to wait for this long period, does it not indicate that someone is holding up the extra track in Dublin for very many years. Evidently, the number of dogs was there, but the owners could not get them in. But the Irish Coursing Club which will now control this new board, apparently, turned a blind eye to the whole matter. The Advisory Committee expressed their opinion when they said:—

"While we are inclined to agree with the view regarding a third track, we do not feel in present circumstances in a position to make definite recommendations in the matter. We, therefore, commend the suggestion to the Control Board for consideration in the future and in the light of the conditions then prevailing in the greyhound industry."

Could anything by clearer? The Minister has painted a picture, and not an over-rosy picture. It is a rosy picture for the greyhound industry.

Deputy MacEntee has pointed out that the potential is there for an industry with an export trade of over £2,000,000 per annum. Reference has also been made to the big increase in attendances at Dublin tracks as a result of the totalisator being introduced. We say that a new type of racegoer entirely will attend greyhound racing. Nothing can stop a third track being opened in Dublin. We say that it is completely injurious to and against the wishes of the majority of the members of this House to give the board the authority they are being given here.

If this section is passed, when the establishment date is announced, I forecast that one of the first tasks this new board will set about will be the acquisition of a site for a new greyhound track in Dublin. I want to ask the Minister if he thinks a third track is necessary here. Surely the Minister could give consideration to existing bodies associated with coursing, if you like, who have some interest even in the existing tracks. It would be quite logical for this board to confine themselves to their activities under Section 23—the licensing of new tracks. If a third track is to be established in Dublin, surely the board would be justified in saying that an interest in the new track should be given to some of the people directly concerned with Harold's Cross or Shelbourne Park. I have no brief for either, but am concerned about their being shut out.

I cannot see that it is. I think the Minister's argument in the latter part of his last speech was a very weak one. This Greyhound Industry Board is being set up to develop the greyhound industry. I cannot see their running a greyhound racing track as a sort of unemployment relief scheme. That is what the Minister suggested the board might do. When the Minister is driven to an argument of that sort to justify the powers he seeks to confer on the board under Section 42, he must know as well as I do that he has a very weak case. In fact, having regard to the circumstances in which the existing tracks exist here in Ireland, it is beyond the imagination almost to conceive any conditions in which the board would be justified in establishing, equipping and maintaining its own racetrack.

It is a great pity that the Minister tries to equate the powers which he is seeking to establish here with the powers conferred on the Racing Board. They are very different circumstances. I am not so cure that the Oireachtas was fully justified in giving such power to the Racing Board but the fact that it has been given to the Racing Board is no reason why it should be given to the Greyhound Industry Board unless the Minister can show very solid and substantial reasons for it. Therefore, we cannot allow the section to pass. I gather that the Minister is prepared to abandon it and to allow the House——

Mr. Dillon

No. I would be prepared to consider, between now and the Report Stage——

Mr. MacEntee

That will not do. The Minister has not made a case for it.

Mr. Dillon

Then divide.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Minister should decide, here and now, to drop Section 42.

Mr. Dillon

I am not prepared to ask the House to negative the section. I am prepared to examine the matter between now and the Report Stage.

Mr. MacEntee

We are too strongly opposed to the section to accept that.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 47.

Tá

Barry, Anthony.
Barry, Richard.
Beirne, John.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James J.
Byrne, Patrick.
Byrne, Thomas.
Carew, John.
Coburn, George.
Collins, Seán.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Crowe, Patrick.
Deering, Mark.
Desmond, Daniel.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, Michael.
Esmonde, Anthony C.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Finlay, Thomas A.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hession, James M.
Hughes, Joseph.
Kenny, Henry.
Keyes, Michael.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
Larkin, James.
Leary, Johnny.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McGilligan, Patrick.
Manley, Timothy.
Morrissey, Dan.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Carroll, Maureen.
O'Connor, Kathleen.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Donovan, John.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Pattison, James P.
Roddy, Joseph.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tully, James.
Tully, John.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Childers, Erskine H.
Colley, Harry.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Michael J.
de Valera, Eamon.
de Valera, Vivion.
Egan, Kieran P.
Fanning, John.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kelly, Edward.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Lahiffe, Robert.
Lemass, Seán.
Lynch, Celia.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Moher, John W.
Mooney, Patrick.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donough.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheridan, Michael.
Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Mrs. O'Carroll; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 43.

Question proposed: "That Section 43 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacEntee

We here fully accept the fact that, if greyhound racing, breeding, coursing and selling is to be cleaned up, the board must have powers to conduct investigations, to investigate allegations that there may have been abuses, but I think that the Minister in this section has gone further than is justifiable and, I believe, further than he intends. If the Minister will look at sub-section (6) of the section he will see that it states:—

"For the purposes of an investigation under this section, the person conducting the investigation may, by notice served on any person——"

on any person—

"——require that person to furnish to him any information which he may reasonably consider necessary and specifies in the notice."

I think that is very wise particularly having regard to the fact that if a person upon whom a notice has been served

"...fails or refuses to furnish any information within his knowledge which he is required to furnish under the section or in furnishing any such information, furnishes information which, to his knowledge, is false or misleading in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20."

The person conducting an investigation may be drawn from an unlimited category of persons.

"The board may cause any occurrence brought to its notice in relation to any matter connected with the greyhound industry to be investigated in such manner as the board thinks proper."

I assume under that section the board could select—I am not suggesting they would but I assume the board might select—a person known to have a grudge against a person whose conduct was to be investigated and appoint him to conduct the investigation. It seems to me inconceivable that the Minister really intended to confer these very wide powers of investigation on the board and to enable the inquisitor appointed by the board to serve notice upon any person requiring him to furnish him with any information "which he may reasonably consider necessary and specifies in the notice."

Under that section a notice might be served upon a person who had really only the most casual association with the incident. It might be served upon a person to whom knowledge had come in an indirect and unwanted way. A man might have heard a conversation taking place under circumstances which he might have regarded as binding him to secrecy or confidence in the sense that, if he divulged it, he might be charged with eavesdropping. Or it might be that some private correspondence had come into his possession and he had unwittingly read it or informed himself as to its contents. Therefore, he would come into possession of information in a way which was unwitting or involuntary on his part. If he has information which he has obtained and which has come to him in this way, if notice is served upon him he would have to inform the investigator as to everything he knows.

Supposing he does convey this information to the board's inquisitor, and supposing on examination and on investigation the information which he has given to the inquisitor is found to be incorrect, will the person who has been compelled to give information in this way be liable for slander? As far as I can see the section will not confer any privilege on him—I do not think it should—but it does make him liable, if he is convicted of an offence on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20. I do not think the Minister ever intended that the section would operate in that way. I am not contending for a moment that the board should not be given powers of investigation but I do think that the powers which are conferred on the board should be defined very closely and I do think that the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted should also be specified.

That is not what the section contains. Sub-section (1) reads:—

Mr. S. Flanagan

If this section is studied it will be seen that it gives very unusual privileges to the investigating people. As far as I can see a person might be convicted of an offence without having ever been brought to the board at all or for that matter, without having any opportunity of defending himself or putting up a case for himself. I consider, therefore, that Deputy MacEntee is right in suggesting that this section goes much too far.

If I read the section properly it means, for instance, as regards sub-section (6), that a person could be served with notice requiring him to furnish information by return post and he might not be in a position to furnish that information. The sub-section should provide for a minimum period between the service of the notice on the person required to furnish information and the date on which such information would have to be given. Sub-section (6) merely says: "The person conducting the investigation may, by notice served on any person" without specifying the time of it. I am sure the Minister will agree that we would not be doing anything more than our duty in protecting the citizen if we were to insist that the section would contain a minimum period of, say, ten or 14 days which the person required to furnish information would be given by right.

Like Deputy MacEntee and others on this side of the House, I feel perturbed about giving any board, person or club the right to publish in any manner which it considers proper the result of an investigation. It is not right and proper that the private citizen should be subjected to that sort of treatment with our approval and by our direction. It seems to me, if I read the section properly or understand it that a person might never have appeared or given any evidence or been required to give any evidence himself in his own defence, and that the board could if it wished publish its findings by spreading rumours around tracks or coursing meetings against a person. I do not think that is proper. Anybody who is required to furnish information should be given a certain minimum period in which to do so.

Furthermore, any person who has been the subject of an investigation should himself have the right to attend and defend himself if he so wishes, and I think that some definition should be placed by us on the manner in which the findings of any such investigation should be published.

It would not be beyond the ability of this House to devise a simple amendment to this which would provide for the things I have mentioned. Even though no amendment was put down from this side of the House up to the present time, even if the Minister thinks that he has not been treated properly in not having an amendment put down, I hope he will give full consideration to the views being expressed, however late in his estimation, by us in regard to the powers being given to the board and the club under this section.

We think, and every sensible person is bound to think, that investigation of some type is absolutely essential to make this Bill what it should be, but I think Deputy MacEntee and myself have given sufficient grounds for the contention that the section as it stands gives far too wide a power as regards the scope of the investigation, the powers regarding the publication of the result of this investigation and also as regards the failure to protect the person who would be the subject of the investigation. Obviously you can have investigation about matters which are not of very great personal importance. I am not talking about cases like that. I am thinking rather of matters that would be of serious importance from the point of view of those subjected to such investigation. Where the matter is serious we ought to do something to protect the right of the individual whose behaviour is being investigated. It can be said, without fear of contradiction, that clauses (6), (7), (8) and (9), taken in conjunction with clause (1), if allowed to stand in their present form, will not afford adequate protection. Certainly, in their present form, they will be no credit to this Parliament.

We feel it our duty not to permit the passage of this section as it stands. We think it should be amended along the lines suggested by both Deputy MacEntee and myself. Possibly Deputy O'Malley will have something to say about it also. If it is our intention to give fair play, and nothing else, to those subject to investigation, then the section should be amended and should not be allowed to go out from here in its present woolly and vague form.

The section does not provide for any right of appeal against the findings of the investigating body. An all-powerful investigating board will have the right to publish its findings in any manner it thinks fit, without notice to the individual who is the subject of the investigation, and without that individual being present at the investigation, and without any right of appeal. Taking all these factors into consideration, does the Minister seriously think that we are giving fair play to the individual who will be investigated? Does he not think that we are giving altogether too wide powers to those who will carry out such investigation? It would be desirable to amend this section in such a way as not to curtail the real power of the board to investigate but to ensure that the board cannot ride roughshod over the individual.

Deputy Flanagan dealt with that point from the legal viewpoint. We agree with this section in principle, merely suggesting the addenda that the authorised officer shall submit to the board his report in writing concerning such investigations which may have been made by him under sub-sections (1) and (2) of the section within one week from the completion of such investigations, and shall furnish a copy of such report to all persons concerned. What we want is that the authorised officer shall furnish in writing to the board the grounds of his complaint and that a copy of the report shall go to the person who might be called the defendant. The reason we stress a week is that this authorised officer may go into a track the morning after the Act comes into force. If the report is held over for a considerable time, the officer will not have the facts fresh in his memory and an injustice may be done. Supposing he leaves the report over for three months, the facts will not be as clear in his mind. The Irish Coursing Club steward must be present as well and I understand it is quite likely that this authorised officer may carry out his investigations in conjunction with the Irish Coursing Club steward.

I do not mind if the Minister specifies a month as the maximum period of time, but if it is left for three months or longer, a lot of witnesses might even have gone out of their minds. It is for those reasons that we stress the element of time. Surely a person who is accused of a crime—and that is what occurs when a man stops a dog or substitutes a dog—should be allowed to put up a defence and should be allowed to give his end of the story. That is only common justice and that is what is sought in the first paragraph of the amendment.

The second paragraph of the amendment sets out that any person concerned may intimate to the board his desire to be heard by the board before the result of any investigation is arrived at, and shall forward in writing to the board notice of such intimation within one week of receiving the copy of the report furnished pursuant to the first paragraph of the amendment.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Mr. P.J. Burke

If the Minister states he is accepting the amendment, I can sit down, because I think it is a very fair amendment:—

Precisely. The importance of this amendment is that it does give an aggrieved person who has reason to believe that the report of this authorised person was vitiated by malice the right to know what has been said against him and, if he has been wrongfully accused, then to proceed by the ordinary civil courts against the person who has slandered him or libelled him, as the case may be. That is what we are getting at.

The Minister will appreciate that, perhaps, this paragraph (c) operates also in one way to protect the authorised officer, because a person who has been found guilty on sound evidence and, perhaps, a person whom the authorised officer has reported to the board on sound evidence, as being guilty of a malpractice, will not proceed in the courts but will accept without further ado the finding of the officer when it comes to his hands. We are, I think, getting into a more or less absurd position, first of all, that an officer of this board may, wittingly or unwittingly, wilfully or innocently, ruin a man in his reputation and in his livelihood, and the person who will be so affected will not know what has been said against him. I cannot conceive that that is a reasonable way of proceeding, that it is a just way of proceeding and that it will help this board to be cleared up or the industry to be put upon a sound basis.

All we are asking in paragraph (a) is that the person who is involved in a finding, in an adverse finding particularly, of an authorised officer should know the terms of that report and, if he thinks well of it, should have the right to be heard by the board before the board takes action. I submit that it is really only an innocent person who would avail of that procedure. If the person is guilty, he will accept the finding of the board and will try to avoid the publicity which might necessarily attach to the proceedings if he went before the board. Certainly, there is one thing a guilty person will not do, and that is, bring the matter into the public courts.

I cannot see why the Minister is so adamant in refusing even to consider what is involved in this amendment. He has, I am afraid, reverted to the stubborn and obstinate refusal to participate in the debate which characterised the proceedings in this House on this Bill before July last. I would beg the Minister not to do that. Earlier to-day and on the last occasion on which we were debating the Bill, he has shown that he is prepared to participate in the deliberations of the House. I would ask him on this occasion, despite everything that has happened, to approach this amendment objectively.

It is no pleasure to be talking here like this this evening. We all know that, if it were not for the issues involved, if we were to allow this Bill to go through, the business would collapse because there is no other business to go before the House, and we are all just as anxious to get away and have time to ourselves as the Minister is, but we are here tied to this post of duty and we are trying to get the Minister to consider the ordinary rights of the citizen under the Constitution. That is what is involved in Deputy O'Malley's amendment. I hope that the Minister, who was so concerned on other occasions about the constitutional rights of the citizen in regard to education and health, will consider them even in relation to the greyhound industry.

Mr. Dillon

I have nothing to add to what I have already said while Deputy MacEntee was at his tea.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. MacEntee

We will have to consider another amendment on Report Stage to see if we cannot get this into the Bill by a side-wind.

Mr. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 23 (f):—

Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) All investigations under this section shall be carried out in accordance with regulations made by the Minister.

The Minister is not going to get off as easily as all that. There is this provision in the section:

"(4) a person who—

(a) obstructs or impedes the exercise of any power conferred by this section."

What does that mean? Surely before a person can be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) the authorised officer would have to inform that person what he was undertaking. Surely the person likely to be mainly concerned in the offence under paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) would be the person suspected of the action which was being investigated. Therefore, is there anything so absurd in asking that the authorised officer will inform the person suspected of an offence at a race meeting which he is proposing to investigate what the offence is? I think there is a little more than that in it.

Sub-section (3) says:

"For the purposes of an investigation under this section, an authorised officer may—

——and he will be storming heaven that the rest will not find out. Now, if he has painted a dog, does he require to be told in writing that he is being investigated for painting a dog?

Mr. MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Now that I have secured the attention of the Minister, I cannot conceive the reluctance of the Minister to give any consideration to his obligations as a member of the Government to ensure that the powers which he confers on this board are not being wrongfully used and that at least he will prescribe some procedure which will give some protection to the person who may own, train or be in some other way interested in a greyhound against a malicious accusation that he is guilty of some sort of wrong-doing in respect of greyhound racing or coursing. That is what we are asking the Minister to do by amendment No. 23.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I think it might be possible to bring Deputy MacEntee and the Minister together on the matter. I think that in a way we may possibly be talking about different things. It is recommended in the report that wide powers should be given to investigating officers for the purpose of putting down abuses. I think that recommendation is a very wise one, but, unfortunately, as the Bill is drafted, a great deal of power is being left in the hands of the body in respect of which the aforesaid report had an awful lot of derogatory statements to make. I am personally satisfied enough that the only way you can successfully make an investigation rapidly and on the spot is by doing it. You either do it or you do not.

SECTION 45.

Mr. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 23:—

This gives very wide powers of entry and inspection.

"An authorised officer may ... at all reasonable times enter on and inspect any greyhound racetrack,"—

we are not objecting to that—

"authorised coursing ground or place used for the public sale of greyhounds"—

there is objection to that—

"or the training of greyhounds for reward and may there require any person to give him any information which he may reasonably consider necessary for the purposes of the administration of this Act."

I do not think we could take any exception to giving an authorised officer power of entry and inspection on a greyhound racetrack or coursing ground, but it is quite a different matter to give him power of entry into a sale yard at any time. Of course, the section says "at all reasonable times" and possibly I am overstating it when I say "at any time". "... and there require any person to give him any information which he may reasonably consider necessary for the purposes of the administration of this Act." It then goes on to say that a person who

"(a) obstructs or impedes the exercise of any power conferred by this section,

(b) fails or refuses to give an authorised officer any information within his knowledge which the officer requires under this section, or

(c) in giving any such information, gives information which, to his knowledge, is false or misleading in any material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20."

That is the ordinary law of the land and the Garda, at least, comes in uniform. A Garda is trained in investigation, but here we have an authorised officer, a private individual, who might possibly fake his credentials and authority, and he is entitled to enter the premises of a person carrying on his ordinary occupation.

Mr. Sweetman

Faking his credentials—surely not?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly, he might. It might be some person who was not a genuine authorised officer. What we are doing is giving power of entry to a person who does not carry his authority on the surface as a Garda will—a Garda is in uniform nine times out of ten when he tries to enter a premises and he is armed with a search warrant and he has to be. He has to apply for this search warrant in due form, but under Section 46 the Minister proposes to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry appointed as an authorised officer by the greyhound industry board to enter at will.

I know, of course, there is the apparent safeguard of the phrase "at all reasonable times". I suppose that means that he will not enter your premises at 3 o'clock in the morning, but he may do it at 7.30 in the evening, particularly if you happen to be training greyhounds, or at any time between that and midnight. The Minister asks: why did I not put down an amendment? Because the section on the face of it is so bad that, unless the Minister indicated here, having heard the arguments, that he proposed drastically to amend it, there would be no purpose in putting down an amendment. What we did intend to do was to vote against the section because, as I have already said, it gives to an official of this board—which carries no responsibility to this House or to the people of this country except such as may precariously attach to the Minister—the right to enter the premises of a private citizen who is trying to earn his livelihood by carrying on a legitimate business.

I remember how vocal the Minister used to be about the rights of citizens. When we were putting through the Health Act which the Minister's Government are now operating, I remember how very vocal the Minister was about the rights of citizens. I recall how vocal he was when we were putting through an Education Bill. If the Almighty had given me the rhetorical powers the Minister has, the roof would be lifted off this Assembly. I know that Deputy Dillon, by his eloquence, would shake the walls of this chamber if we brought in a provision like this. We do not put down an amendment to this section because the section is so radically bad that, unless the Minister indicates that he proposes to amend it in such a way that it will ensure that, before a servant of this board tries to enter the premises of any private individual, he will arm himself with a search warrant similar to that necessary for a Garda, we will vote against the section. That is the way in which this section should be amended. I hope the Minister will be able to give serious consideration to an amendment to the section on the lines we have suggested.

Mr. Dillon

Under Section 38, which has already been adopted by the Dáil, the board is charged with responsibility for the supervision of public sales of greyhounds, and there are laid upon the board a number of duties to ensure that such sales are properly conducted. That section was adopted by this House after protracted discussion. The means of giving effect to that section are set out in Section 46, which we are now considering. Under the section, an authorised official, and only an authorised official—who shall, as already explained to the House, correspond very closely to a stipendiary steward of the Racing Board—shall have, at all reasonable times, a right of entry to a place where public auctions of dogs are being conducted. That is the purpose of this section.

As I have said on a previous occasion:—

"That's the wise thrush

He sings each song twice over

This is not relevant to Section 46.

Mr. MacEntee

I went out to get a copy of the Constitution. Article 40 guarantees that the dwelling-house of every citizen is inviolate. When I put it to the Minister that it might be a nice point of law to decide whether the dwelling-house of a greyhound trainer, whether the outhouses in which he kennelled the dogs he was training, was not part of his dwelling-house, the Minister got up and said "Oh, we are not suggesting that the trainer will train his dogs in his bedroom." Nobody suggested that. The Minister might have imagined that is where the greyhounds are trained. Performing fleas might be trained in some of the bedrooms we hear about.

Everybody knows where greyhounds are trained. The people who train them very often are agricultural labourers and others, and it would be very difficult, as I said, to differentiate between a building which would be properly an appurtenance to a dwelling-house and a building which would be used solely for the purposes of training greyhounds. Greyhounds are not trained in bedrooms, but they have to be kennelled somewhere and where they are kennelled is part of the trainer's establishment. Where they are kennelled might be very difficult to distinguish as a separate building distinct from the trainer's dwelling. It might be all part of the same premises. The Minister apparently does not know that.

He has been harping here about the Racing Board. He has professed on more than one occasion to know nothing about greyhound racing and yet he comes in here and legislates for conditions of which he has no knowledge, of which he is proud to parade his ignorance. We do not live on the same lofty plain as the Minister. We are not philosophic Liberals on this side of the House. We happen to be just down-to-earth, common citizens who know how the ordinary people of this country make a living, including the type of person whom you must often find training greyhounds. He does not belong to the aristocracy with which the Minister associates. He is just an ordinary plain Tom, Dick or Harry, a fellow who probably might, in a misguided moment, vote for the Minister—but he is not likely to vote for him at the next general election.

In any event, because we know the conditions under which these people carry on, we are saying to the Minister what in fact he is giving, in one case at least, the authorised officer of this Greyhound Industry Board the right to do is to enter what may be the dwelling of a private citizen, and if that private citizen happens to be a man in humble circumstances, trying to eke out a livelihood by training greyhounds, he has the same right of protection as the friends of the Minister who might have their dwellings in much more opulent circumstances. I think it is really an abuse of the procedure of the House to have the Minister come up here and, when he is faced with solid arguments against the section, to get up and treat them with the derision and scorn with which he treated them here this evening.

I was hoping that, after this failure which attended his efforts to steamroll this Bill through the House during the summer session, the Minister would come here and be prepared to listen to our arguments in an objective way. We are not suggesting that he would concede everything we would say, but at least what we have been saying has been well grounded and has been advanced here because there are sections in this Bill which, in our opinion, are repugnant to the Constitution and which, whether they are repugnant to the letter of the Constitution or not, are at least repugnant to all standards and criteria of fair play and justice.

These are the things which we tried to deal with on other sections. Having said that, the Minister can get his Section 46 if he likes, but there are some other stages of this Bill yet to be faced and, unless the Minister between now and the Report Stage brings in an amendment which will at least meet the point of view of the Opposition, he is not going to get very much further with this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 47.

Mr. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 23 (h):—

In sub-section (1), line 31, before "by" to insert "having heard any person affected, or having afforded such person an opportunity of being heard".

The adoption of the amendment would mean that sub-section (1) of Section 47 would read as follows:—

"The board, with the consent of the club, or the club, with the consent of the board, having heard any person affected, or having afforded such person an opportunity of being heard, may ..."

Mr. Dillon

Yes. I will meet the Deputy on that.

Mr. O'Malley

Thank you.

Mr. Dillon

I will accept that or draftsman's words, that is to say, if the Deputy will withdraw the amendment, I will introduce something on Report Stage to reproduce what he has in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 23 (i):—

In sub-section (1), line 33, after "following" to insert "for a period not exceeding three years".

Thank you.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 23 (j):—

In sub-section (3), line 39, before "revoke" to insert "and with the consent of the board".

The Minister will notice that I did not suggest the insertion of the words in sub-section (2). Sub-sections (2) and (3) are similarly worded:—

"(2) The board may, after consultation with the club, revoke any exclusion order made by the board.

"(3) The club may, after consultation with the board, revoke any exclusion order made by the club."

Comparatively trivial but we are grateful. We are grateful for the generosity which the Minister parades before the Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 48.

Mr. Dillon

I move amendment No. 24:—

Before sub-section (2), to insert the following new sub-section:—

(2) Where regulations under sub-section (1) of this section fix, in relation to a greyhound racetrack or part thereof, maximum charges in respect of bookmakers carrying on their business which are more than five times the maximum charges fixed in relation to the track or part, by the regulations (or by other regulations for the time being in force) in respect of persons who are not such bookmakers, the regulations shall require the consent of the Minister.

This amendment is designed to enable me to satisfy myself that the board will not prescribe admission charges for bookmakers higher than five times the admission charges for the ordinary public unless it is fully necessary. If the board does not take any action under Section 48 of the Bill, which gives it the power to fix charges, the entry charge for bookmakers to every track is a matter of negotiation and arrangement between bookmakers and the track management because under Section 48 the board "may by regulations" do certain things. If it does not make regulations then the status quo, whatever it is, continues to operate but if the board decides, in respect of any track, to regulate the entrance fee for bookmakers they cannot fix an entrance fee for bookmakers in excess of five times the fee charged to the public for entrance on the course without express sanction from the Minister for Agriculture.

If this amendment is adopted these alternatives are available in respect of charges to be made to bookmakers hereafter: (1) the board may declare itself disinterested, in which event bookmakers and course management can make any arrangement which is mutually acceptable; (2) the board may declare itself interested and say to the track management: "You may not charge more than five times the admission charge levied on the public in respect of a bookmaker." In either of these two contingencies the Minister does not come in at all, but supposing there is a country track, a rural track or a track anywhere where, in the judgment of the board, it is fair and equitable that, in all the circumstances, the track management should be allowed to charge the bookmakers more than five times the charge levied on the public, they may authorise a charge in excess of five times the basic admission charge. However, such an order has no effect until it has been submitted to the Minister for Agriculture and approved by him.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, that is the most equitable way of disposing of this difficult question of bookmakers' entrance fees while at the same time ensuring that you may not place upon small tracks an impossible burden by precluding them from charging more than five times the basic charge. I understand in respect of certain tracks bookmakers would prefer that the board would disinterest themselves altogether and allow the local bookmakers' association and the race track management to make an equitable arrangement suitable to both, but the inclusion of this amendment provides, I think, against every possible contingency and for that reason I recommend it to the Dáil.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m., until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 31st October, 1956.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 30 Oct 1956

Committee on Finance. - Greyhound Industry Bill, 1955—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Oct 1956