We are dealing with amendments Nos. 25 (a), 28 (a), and the Minister's amendment No. 24 which are now being taken together. Are those not the amendments?
Greyhound Industry Bill, 1955—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment to Section 48:—
PART VI.
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 race track 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.— (An tAire Talmhaíochta).
Yes.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to what I think is an error on my part in regard to amendment No. 28 (a). Amendment No. 28 (a) deals with sub-section (5) of Section 48 on page 23 of the Bill. Does the Minister see sub-section (5)?
He does.
That sub-section deals with coursing grounds.
It does not matter. We can discuss the general question raised by the three amendments.
Since the Second Stage of the Bill, the Minister has gone a certain distance by introducing a ministerial amendment which goes so far as to ensure that, in regard to the maximum charges in relation to the tracks in respect of persons who are not bookmakers, these regulations shall require the Minister's consent. That has gone very far to meet us. In view of previous speeches made by the Minister himself, in view of the Racing Board and Racecourses Act of 1945, in which he showed great solicitude for the bookmakers and in view of the Advisory Committee's recommendation that the charges should be limited to five times the amount, I would press the Minister to introduce the same provisions here as exist in the Racing Board and Racecourses Act of 1945. The Advisory Committee, at paragraph 166 on page 70 of their report, stated:—
"We assume that if our recommendations in regard to the installation of the totalisators are approved, a licence to operate them will be granted only to the control board and in accordance with the terms of the Totalisator Act, 1929, of which sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 3 are as follows."
Then they quote sub-section (6) which says specifically that, where a totalisator is in use, the charge to a bookmaker shall be limited to five times the amount of the charge to the public, but the Advisory Committee were never informed that the Racing Board and Racecourses Act of 1945 repealed sub-section (6). It is rather extraordinary that a Government commission, having the assistance of civil servants, were allowed to be under the misapprehension that a certain section which was subsequently repealed was still in operation. Sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the Racing Board and Racecourses Act, 1945, says:—
"Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Totalisator Act, 1929 (No. 22 of 1929), is hereby amended by the deletion of all words from the words ‘and the charge to any such licensed bookmaker' to the end of the said sub-section."
It has actually cut out a safeguard which the members of the commission thought existed. In other words, the bookmakers were under the impression, I was under the impression and most Deputies in this House were under the impression that, where a totalisator was in operation, automatically it followed that the charge to bookmakers was limited to five times the admission charge to the public. I now find that that is not so. There is no question of doubt about it. Therefore, the position at present is that even though the totalisator is introduced to, say, Shelbourne Park or Harold's Cross, for a start off that concession, which the Advisory Committee evidently thought was in operation of giving some sop to the bookmakers, is not there now. I refer to paragraph 166 of the Advisory Committee's report. They took that into consideration.
The Minister, when speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, at columns 1435 and 1436, Volume 153 of the Official Report, said:—
"Part V of the Bill, dealing with course-betting permits for bookmakers and levies in respect of course bets, follows the lines of Part III of the 1954 Act concerning horse racing except that its operation is subject to ministerial Order from time to time, as the possibility is allowed for that, instead of a levy on course bets, there may be substituted a special admission charge on bookmakers payable to the board under sub-sections (4) and (7) of Section 48 in Part VI of the Bill. Such special admission charges would of course be in addition to the admission charges payable to the tracks or clubs holding the meetings and under sub-section (1) of Section 48 the board would have power to control the over-all charges.
Under the 1945 Act concerning horse racing, the maximum admission charge to bookmakers is fixed at five times the charge to members of the public and it has been represented on behalf of the greyhound bookmakers, especially the smaller ones, that the same limitation should apply in their case."
The Minister goes on to say:—
"The present charges"
—I am not sure where he got his figures—
"to greyhound bookmakers are substantially in excess of five times the charges to spectators and the greyhound tracks appear to think that the same limitation as for the horse racing would involve them in losses .... It may be said in particular that the board will be expected to protect at all times the legitimate interests of the small bookmakers who will be subject to a betting levy or to a special admission charge in lieu thereof."
The matter was very capably dealt with by Deputy Finlay at column 1495 in the same volume of the Official Report. He said:—
"I should also like the Minister to consider the question of the maximum and minimum charges for admission to racetracks. This is a matter which has been the subject of very hard bargaining between greyhound racing track managers and promoters and bookmakers, both collectively and individually. I think there is considerable force in the argument that, where the board are getting power to fix a maximum admission charge and where the effect of this Bill will be to provide for the installation of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks, that must take away from bookmakers as a group, some of their bargaining power with racetrack managers."
The point he is making is perfectly correct. Hitherto, like workers in industry, the bookmakers at tracks, where there is no totalisator, could say to the track executive: "If you do such and such a thing, then we will stop betting."
Deputy Finlay rightly points out that, with the introduction of the totalisator, that bargaining power will be taken from them. He goes on to say:—
"... I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of tying down the maximum charges for admission to bookmakers to the maximum charges for the admission of the public. The exact ratio is a matter which could be discussed. It is not a matter on which I have any information which would be sound enough to be of assistance to the Minister."
At the bottom of that same column, 1496, Deputy Finlay goes on to say:—
"If it is possible to assess now what would be a reasonable ratio between the charges which could be made for the admission of the public and the charges which could be made for the admission of the bookmakers, it would allay the fears of those who are being affected by this Act."
He is 100 per cent. correct in that— that this is the place, now, to tie down this ratio. The Minister said that it was all right for Dublin to limit the possible charges to five times the admission charges, but that there were certain tracks down the country where the charge might be as low as 1/-. At column 1657 of Volume 153, the following appears:—
"... but when it comes to asking me to fix a maximum of five times the admission price for a bookmaker entering a greyhound track because that is the maximum fixed on the racehorse tracks, I want to remind the House that when we talk of greyhound tracks we should not think only of Harold's Cross and Shelbourne Park. There may be tracks down the country where, in order to draw a crowd, the proprietors may charge only 1/- or 2/-.
Mr. T. Walsh: There is not one in Ireland that I know where the entrance fee is 1/-.
Mr. Dillon: I do not know. I do not suppose the Deputy is a frequenter of these tracks much more than I am myself and I do not know what the practice is, but my advice from a variety of sources is that it may be that some of these country tracks have to charge very low entrance fees...."
That is not so. There is no track in Ireland to-day charging anything as low as 1/- for admission. The lowest I know of is 2/6.
In the outside rings?
The idea of outside and inside rings only exists in Dublin. There is no class distinction in the rural areas. When the Minister suggested that some bookmakers were at present paying as much as ten times the admission charges, Deputy Briscoe reminded him that he should know that the present high level of prices to bookmakers was of recent occurrence and was based on expectancy of the Bill. Therefore, as all these amendments are co-related, and as this appears to be the most contentious section in the whole Bill, would the Minister, in order that we might progress to the less important remaining sections, consider this point? His point is that some racetracks charge, say, 1/-, and that, if the admission charges of the bookmakers were five times that amount, then they would be paying only 5/- and their assistant 1/-. Would the Minister be agreeable to an addition to my amendment No. 25 (a) (2) (a) before the Report Stage, or on the Report Stage, to the effect that the minimum charge in no case shall be less than 17/6 for the bookmaker and 3/6 for his assistant? I understand from friends of mine on the opposite side of the House who are interested in this Bill that this should cover everything.
The Minister's fear is that, down the country, the admission charges are so low that tracks might be losing. I was satisfied, personally, that the track executives would lose so little on the transaction that, if they did need a grant, the board could favourably consider it, because they have the powers. In a nutshell, all these amendments would go, including the Minister's amendment, if, as in the Racing Board Act of 1945, the idea therein, word for word, were introduced here, but the safeguard then to keep in mind on the point made by the Minister could be that in no case the admission charges shall be less than say 17/6 for the bookmaker and, say, 3/6 to be paid by his assistant. It would get us a considerable distance. In his White Paper, the Minister stated:—
"Under the 1945 Act the Racing Board may regulate the charges for admission of licensed bookmakers and their assistants to horse racecourses generally, but may not fix the charges for bookmakers at more than five times the charges for members of the public nor the charges for bookmakers' assistants at more than the charges for members of the public."
He continued:—
"The Advisory Committee's report (paragraph 166) recommended the limits of charges for the admission of bookmakers and their assistants should apply in the same way to greyhound tracks on which totalisators may be installed."
That, as I have pointed out, even in the White Paper is wrong. We now find that, even when the totalisator starts off in Shelbourne Park and Harold's Cross, this safeguard is not there of five times the admission charge.
To hark back to the Minister's point, that some of them are possibly at present paying six, eight or ten times the admission charge, as Deputy Briscoe said, that was put on by farseeing directors of the Dublin tracks in anticipation of the Bill.
When was it first put on, exactly?
As far as I know, the increased charges are in operation about 20 months.
I think the Deputy is completely wrong.
I should be sorry if all my information were as unsound as the information of the Advisory Committee on which Deputy Barry sat. They are talking here about Acts of 1929 which were repealed in 1945. I am not completely wrong. The charges were bounced up 20 months ago and they were increased again before that. My point is that the reasons the Advisory Committee recommended that the charges be limited to five times the admission charge were purely and simply to compensate the bookmakers in some small measure for the loss they would sustain, due to the introduction of the tote. It is agreed by everyone in the Advisory Committee's report that the bookmakers' turnover will be reduced by about 20 per cent. taking into consideration increased attendances.
I therefore ask the Minister to introduce, verbatim, Section 26 of the Racing Board and Racecourses Act, 1945, and everybody will be happy. I would go further and suggest that this minimum charge should also be introduced before the Report Stage, which will cater for the point the Minister had in mind; in other words, that the minimum charge shall be 17/6 for bookmakers and 3/6 for their assistants. I would go even further, but I do not know if I am going too far, and make the minimum charge in any case £1 and let the charge for bookmakers' assistants be 5/-. That is going a long way.
Take the track in Limerick. It is 2/6 for the public to go in. Five times that is 12/6 and the charge for the bookmakers' assistants under the Racing Board's idea is 2/6. What I say is: limit it to five times the admission charge. I do not know if the charges at Limerick can go up, but make the minimum charges £1 for the bookmaker and 5/- for his assistant which will not, I agree, be of any immediate benefit to the bookmaker, but it will allay his anxieties and his fears for the future. The Advisory Committee report on page 70, paragraph 166, having satisfied themselves that, where the totalisator was installed, everything in the garden was rosy, that this five times charge was already there and not being aware that sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Act of 1945 had been repealed in the main part, they went on to say, at paragraph 167:—
"We are aware that when it was previously proposed to install totalisators on the Dublin tracks, difficulties arose between the track managements and the bookmakers in regard to the pitches allotted to the latter. We are of opinion that the position of the bookmakers should be safeguarded in accordance with the spirit of the above quoted paragraph (6) of the Totalisator Act, 1929, and that where totalisators are to be installed by the control board, a licence to operate a greyhound racing track should not be granted by the board to the management concerned, or an existing licence renewed, except on a condition on the following lines:—"
That is, that the bookmakers and the management where they fail to agree on the location of pitches should have the right of appeal to the board. I draw Deputy Finlay's attention to this matter because he was very helpful on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I draw his attention to paragraphs 166 and 167, on going on the false assumption that protective legislation existed and that, if it were repeated in the Greyhound Bill, there would be no need for anxiety. I think it is a very important point. It should also be borne in mind that the bookmakers will be, as has been pointed out, the unpaid collectors of the levy.
In this connection, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind on the Report Stage the point which caused quite a great deal of consternation in racing and sporting circles, and the Minister agreed with me on the point raised. I am not getting away from the amendments nor departing from the five times the admission charge point. I want to point out one thing in case the Minister, or the board, might be under any misapprehension about the source of revenue.
At present, under the Finance Act, 1953, and written into this Bill here, if I have £1 on a dog to-morrow morning, the levy payable to the State on that bet, if I lose, is the appropriate rate levied by the board. Supposing it is 10 per cent. and I have £1 on this dog and I lose, the bookmaker pays the State 2/-. If my dog wins at 10 to 1, I get £11 less 22/-, but the bookmaker still pays the State on the £1. How many thousands of pounds have been taken out of the people's pockets in this way I do not know.
Is this relevant to the amendments? I suppose it is as relevant as reading the Official Report and the Deputy has been doing that for an hour, so I suppose I should not object.
I did not come in until 11 o'clock. I am only trying to point out that the Minister cannot take this section and these amendments purely out of their context. The commission made certain recommendations——
Read it all again.
I am not reading it again, I know it all by heart. They made certain recommendations and assumed a certain turnover and certain revenue and I am pointing out one thing which should be cleared up once and for all, because evidently when we go into further details on this amendment, it will be seen that the point I am trying to bring home to the Minister is that a coursing bet——
This has nothing to do with the amendment.
I have already told the Deputy that he is not being relevant.
I want to point out a very important point. A coursing bet is one entered into by a licensed bookmaker——
There is no question of bets in the amendment.
There is no question of bets, but nevertheless, when the commission prepared their report, they prepared it on certain assumptions: that a levy would yield so much at 2½ per cent. and so much at 1¼ per cent., that the licensee of the tracks would pay so much and that the contribution from the bookmakers in certain cases of fixed charges, in certain cases of this very section, would yield so much. I respectfully suggest that I am quite relevant.
It has nothing whatever to do with the entrance fee charged.
The other matter I would like to stress is that the recommendations of the Advisory Committee limiting the charge to five times the admission charge were made after the Advisory Committee had taken evidence from all the tracks in Ireland and examined their accounts. That point was stressed by the bookmakers. As I say, the Minister has gone very far and there is very little between us. My suggestion of the minimum might meet him.
I have carefully considered all the relevant matters in relation to this, including the protracted debate on the Second Stage. I received several deputations from the Bookmakers' Association and other interested parties. I have considered the amendments submitted by the late Deputy Walsh and the substituted amendments now tendered by Deputy O'Malley, and I have to inform the House that the solution I propose for this matter is contained in amendment No. 24, the acceptance of which I cordially recommend to the House as an equitable solution of the various problems ventilated on the Second Stage discussion of this Bill and in the text of the amendment submitted.
Is there no possibility that the Minister would meet the suggestion made by Deputy O'Malley in relation to the small tracks where the totalisator is not likely to be in existence? While it is recognised that there should be a minimum charge greater than the charge to the ordinary person, at least it should be a specified charge and should be a reasonable sum. If the Minister were to say that, in cases where the totalisator was not installed, the maximum charge would be, say, 17/6, as Deputy O'Malley has suggested, or £1, that would cover the whole ground, because we on this side are only concerned at seeing that the dice is not unduly loaded against the bookmakers where the totalisator is not installed.
Does the Deputy not accept that the proviso in amendment No. 24, which says that it must not be more than five times the charge made to the general public without the special authority of the Minister, contains in it the clear implication that a strong case would have to be made for anything in excess of five times, so that it is hardly credible that authorisation would be given for a charge in excess of eight times, which £1, I think, would represent?
We do recognise that the Minister has gone quite a considerable distance but there is this difficulty. Notwithstanding the amendment which the Minister has put down, it would still be possible in certain circumstances to fix the charge for bookmakers at an exorbitant rate——
Not unless the Minister for Agriculture consents to the exorbitant rate.
One does not want to be playing one member of the Government against the other, but suppose the present Minister for Justice, or a person of the same outlook or attitude towards betting as the present Minister for Justice has indicated here in the House, were to become Minister for Agriculture. I concede that that is not likely, but after all we are here to try to safeguard the people who are earning a livelihood in a way which is now recognised as perfectly lawful and is, in fact, acceptable to the general mass of the people. We are here to ensure that they will be protected against the idiosyncrasies and prejudices of whoever may be responsible to Dáil Eireann for administering this Bill. That is all we are concerned about. If the Minister could come some distance to meet us in that regard I think we could get ahead with fair rapidity.
As the Deputy and Deputy O'Malley fairly said, I have come a very long way indeed to meet appeals made by them and their colleagues in the course of this discussion. I do not think it would be right or even expedient to go further than I have tried to go in amendment No. 24 and I believe that, on reflection, Deputies will realise that, in substance, amendment No. 24 provides every safeguard that they really require.
I assume amendment No. 24 is coupled with amendment No. 27, but would the Minister between now and the Report Stage consider the situation——
I will consider anything.
I know, but we do not want that sort of blanket consideration.
I do not want to deceive the Deputy. I think amendments Nos. 24 and 27 are as far as I can go.
That is rather regrettable.
Is the Minister not aware that the first thing the new board will have to do when it comes in is to deal with these matters because at the present time many of the tracks are robbing the bookmakers with the charges put on. Last Christmas 12 months, in the 1954-55 winter, at Shelbourne Park and Harold's Cross, the charges were raised from £1 to 32/6, and the charges were raised at Dundalk and Navan in March, 1956, while this Bill was being discussed. Deputy Barry tells me I have all my facts wrong. I think the bookmakers who have gone to the Minister and who have gone to people on every side of this House have said that this is the one thing that has been worrying them. On a previous occasion when the 1945 Racing Board Act was being debated, the Minister showed great solicitude for the small man. Would the Minister not think again and we could get the Committee Stage of this Bill over? Could he not say there should be a minimum charge, that in no case shall it be less than £1 for the bookmaker and 5/- for his assistant and in no case shall it be more than five times the admission charge?
In view of the arguments put up here this morning on behalf of the bookmakers, I would press the Minister very strongly to make a definite charge because four or five times the amount of the admission charge is still rather indefinite. We are here to try and help the industry and there is no use trying to squeeze out a very important part of that industry. We would have very poor coursing if we had not bookmakers. As Deputy O'Malley says, the Minister should make a definite charge at a reasonable figure and not leave the bookmakers to the mercy of any particular board. I am not saying that the board will not have a difficult task in carrying out their work.
As I said last night, we want to be impartial, fair and just in this matter. There is no use trying to injure one section. The tracks may decide they are going to put up their charges to £5. They may try and make a case for doing that and they may have confidence enough to succeed in doing that. Legislation by good will and good wishes is very little use to us and we should make it very definite and prescribe a figure. If we succeed in doing that, we will be contributing something worthwhile to stability and eliminating misunderstandings that have occurred from time to time as a result of hasty legislation.
Can we not induce the Minister to go a little bit further? I am just refreshing my recollection of the words of wisdom which the Minister himself used when he was in opposition and was pleading the case of the bookmakers when the Racing Board and Racecourses Bill, 1945, was before the House. The reference is to Volume 96 and the column is 1878. I shall not go so far as the Minister went in his allegations against the Government of that day. I shall not say, as he said on that occasion:—
"I believe that the purpose of those promoting this Bill is to drive the bookmakers off the racecourses. I would issue this warning—the gentlemen who are concerned to do that are failing to see the wood for the trees.... In the last analysis, the horse-breeding industry"—
I suppose one could substitute "the greyhound breeding industry"—
"depends on the mug,"—
I do not agree with that, the Minister's then judgment—
"the person who attends the race meeting for the fun of it. The hub of that fun is the bookmaker's umbrella. I am convinced that this Bill is designed to wipe out the umbrella. These gentlemen think that it is better policy to run racing on the pari-mutuel system, as it is easier to collect the race board's revenue out of the totalisator than it is from the bookmaker. I believe they have sold that idea to a great many people in this country who ought to know better, people who have been racing all their lives, who believe themselves to be deeply concerned with the horse-breeding industry and the success of the export trade.”
The horse-breeding industry the Minister referred to there but the greyhound industry we are considering now.
I shall not say that it is the purpose of the Minister to drive the bookmakers off the racecourses—the amendments, Nos. 24 and 27, which he has put to the House are evidence to the contrary—but we do not think that they do constitute a water-tight safeguard for the bookmaker, particularly for the bookmaker who attends the smaller meetings and in the smaller country towns. I would ask the Minister, will he, between now and Report Stage, look into this matter and see if he can meet the views expressed by Deputy O'Malley and the purpose which lies behind amendments Nos. 25 (a) and 28 (a)? If the Minister would undertake to see if he could meet us to that extent, we will withdraw our amendments and allow the Minister's amendment to go without a division on the assumption that he will consider the points which have been made and put down an amendment on Report Stage which perhaps might cover the point.
Is amendment No. 24 agreed to?
The Minister, I notice, is not prepared to be very conciliatory this morning.
The Deputy has just said that I have come very far to meet him.
Certainly. I am asking him to go——
Further.
Just that little bit further which will meet with the general acceptance of the House. That is all I am asking. If the Minister could see his way to do that, then we certainly should be very pleased and I am sure he would not have any cause to regret it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 25, 25 (a) and 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In sub-section (4), before paragraph (b) to insert the following new paragraph:—
(b) Regulations under this sub-section shall not be made in relation to a greyhound racetrack or part thereof unless regulations under sub-section (1) of this section are made at the same time (or have been made previously) in relation to the track or part.
That seems to be complementary to amendment No. 24.
I think it is.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 28, 28a and 29 not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:—
Before sub-section (6), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(6) Where regulations under sub-section (5) of this section fix, in relation to an authorised coursing meeting, maximum charges in respect of bookmakers carrying on their business which are more than five times the maximum charges fixed, in relation to the meeting, 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.
It is the same principle as amendment No. 24, which the House has already accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (7), before paragraph (b) to insert the following new paragraph:—
(b) Regulations under this sub-section shall not be made in relation to an authorised coursing meeting unless regulations under sub-section (5) of this section are made at the same time (or have been made previously) in relation to the meeting.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Question proposed: "That Section 49 stand part of the Bill."
The section as drafted gives the board absolute power by regulation or notice to fix the stake money and prizes to be offered at greyhound racetracks and gives them absolute power to fix different stake money or prizes in respect of different events and in respect of different tracks. I think that it would not weaken the section and might lead to more satisfactory working if the Minister were to make it obligatory on the board to consult the greyhound racetrack executives before they fix the prizes and stake money. We concede the general principle, but I do think it would make for simpler working if the board were bound to consult. I assume that in the normal way they would do it.
I would assume, with the Deputy, that they normally would. I have not thought it desirable to put any such obligation upon them in the terms of the Act. I am not inclined to do so and if the Deputy feels it is urgently necessary and chooses to put down an amendment for the Report Stage, I will have it considered. I agree with him that it is highly likely that they would consult but I am not quite clear in my own mind that it is desirable to make it a statutory duty upon them to do that, though indeed the statutory duty to consult is never very onerous. However, I shall certainly consider it if the Deputy puts down an amendment.
I think it would make for better relations.
I think the idea behind this was that there would be a subsidy to the prize fund. Therefore, the obligation of consultation would be fulfilled by the track. They are going to seek to increase their prize fund and you will have that consultation.
But there is nothing here about subsidy. The Deputy has not read the section. The section empowers the board by regulations or notice, one or the other, peremptory notice—if the Deputy will look at Section 51, he will see that notice might be served by registered post without any consultation. As I say, the section empowers the board by regulations or notice to fix the stake money and prizes to be offered for events at greyhound tracks.
The Deputy might read that in connection with Section 16 (1) (c). However, I do assure the Deputy there is no need to worry. I agree with the Deputy that consultation, in almost every circumstance, should take place. The net point is: should we make it obligatory or not? I see no great objection to making it obligatory, for consultation can never do anybody any harm. I do not feel it is necessary to put it into the Bill, but if the Deputy feels it is necessary and indicates that by putting down an amendment between now and Report Stage, I shall certainly consider it most favourably.
May I point out something to which Deputy O'Malley has drawn my attention and submit it for the consideration of the Minister? The statement which appears in the White Paper on page 11 relating to Section 49 is very pertinent. It says:—
"As regards Section 49, the Advisory Committee's report (paragraph 148) recommended that the board should have power"
—there is no question of subsidy here—
"to require racetracks to increase prize money if the tracks' financial position should warrant this. In paragraph 81 (4) the report referred to the inadequacy of the prize money offered in the majority of cases."
On the basis of the White Paper, I am sure the Minister will give this very careful consideration and I would be grateful if, in this case, he would relieve the Opposition—for there seems to be so little difference of opinion between us—of the onus of putting down the amendment. He can draft it very much better than we can.
I will carefully consider that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 50
I move amendment No. 31 (a):—
Before Section 50 to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act no regulation made by the board or rule made by the club, the contravention of which would constitute an offence under the Act and such offence on conviction would be punishable by a fine, shall have any force or effect unless the Minister shall have given his consent to such regulation and a statement to that effect appears on the face of the regulation in question.
I think the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to table an amendment on Report Stage which will meet the principle we have endeavoured to make effective by this amendment.
Is this not covered by the general undertaking that any such regulations will have to lie upon the Table and be subject to revision within 21 days?
The point is we have not got the Minister's amendment before the House.
The Deputy has no apprehensions?
None whatever, but, as I say, the Minister has already accepted this in principle. I am not at all apprehensive that the Minister will not give full effect to his undertaking. I am not suggesting that for one moment. I was merely putting the point and the Minister put the query to me to which I replied we had not the amendment before the House. Naturally, we would like to see the Minister's amendment not because we doubt that it will not go all the way to meet us, but because there might be some slight difficulty about it.
I have no objection if the Deputy wants to withdraw this amendment now and put it down again on Report Stage.
Yes, when we have seen the Minister's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31 (b):—
Before Section 50 to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act every regulation made under it by the board or rule made by the club as the case may be shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if either House of the Oireachtas within 21 sitting days after any regulation as aforesaid is laid before it shall pass a resolution annulling such regulation then the regulation in question shall be annulled accordingly and be without any effect whatsoever.
This is the same thing and the same procedure will be appropriate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 50 stand part of the Bill."
This is a section which creates an extraordinary amount of difficulty in my mind because there is a very peculiar principle of duality running all through it. It is very difficult to debate it without reverting to some of the sections which are mentioned. Sub-section (1) says: "An offence under this Act, other than an offence specified in sub-section (2) of this section may be prosecuted by the board." If you turn to Section 25 you will see there is a degree of duality, that a sort of diarchy is going to be set up in relation to the control, not merely of greyhound coursing but of greyhound racing.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.