Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jun 1975

Vol. 281 No. 10

Racing Board and Racecourses (Amendment) Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

The Taoiseach

I move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As Members are aware, the Minister for Finance when announcing increased betting charges in his budget speech in January last explained that this would entail an amendment of the Racing Board and Racecourses Act, 1945. The present Bill will enable the Racing Board to charge a maximum levy of 10 per cent on course bets with bookmakers: the actual levy chargeable will as up to now be subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance. I understand that it is the Racing Board's intention only to increase the levy by 1 per cent. This information is being conveyed to representatives of the bookmakers' organisations. The Bill also provides for an appeal committee to which bookmakers may appeal from decisions of the Racing Board to refuse, suspend or revoke course betting permits. It contains a number of other amendments which I will discuss later.

At the outset I should like to refer briefly to the bloodstock industry, an industry which according to recent estimates represents a total investment of more than £75 million in this country. Ireland has the soil, climate and other natural resources perfectly suited to bloodstock. I am glad to say that by using these resources to the full, by selective breeding and the dedicated management and enthusiastic interest of the many people associated with the industry we have gained a well-deserved and world-wide reputation for top-quality stock.

The total number of bloodstock in the country at present is estimated at 20,000, the number of horses in training is 4,600 and the annual attendance at race meetings is almost one million. Total sums staked with bookmakers at horse races increased from £11.8 million in 1970 to £18.4 million or slightly more in 1974. In the same period the amount staked on the totalisator increased from £4.4 million to £5.8 million. Total prize money at Irish races was £1.4 million in 1974. In the coming year it is likely to increase to £1.75 million.

The bloodstock industry is making a significant contribution to the economy, giving valuable employment, enhancing our export trade, promoting tourism and giving us a justifiable pride in the reputation of the Irish horse throughout the world. At the same time one cannot be complacent. We must exploit the great potential of the industry and ensure that it can compete with growing competition from other countries. Hence the constant need to provide high quality stock and management, attractive racing with better prizes and better amenities for patrons.

I should like to turn now to the Racing Board which down through the years has played a useful and progressive part in Irish racing. As many Deputies are aware, the board was set up in 1945 as a State agency to promote horse breeding and horse racing. Indeed, when it was being discussed in this House at the time there were many reservations expressed not only by some Members of the House but by representatives of the bookmakers and other interests who were apprehensive about the proposals in the Bill. I am glad to say that those of us who supported the Bill and advocated its enactment at the time from both sides of the House have had our views confirmed by the success which has attended the efforts of the board in the meantime and, indeed, in discussions with representatives of the Bookmakers' Association, they acknowledge that it has made a significant contribution to the industry. In co-operation with other racing bodies the board were charged with the task of identifying the needs of the industry and, at the same time, to impose betting charges on the racegoing public and redistribute the proceeds for the general benefit of the industry.

As Deputies are aware the board have 11 members appointed by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Members have to be associated with bloodstock breeding, racing or bookmaking and six of the 11 members must be members of the Irish Turf Club and/or the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee.

The 1945 Act gave the board power to own and operate racecourses and to regulate the management of private courses. At present they own Leopardstown Race Course and they have a controlling interest in Limerick Junction. The other 24 courses are privately owned. The board may grant, refuse, suspend or revoke course betting permits for bookmakers. They get their funds, as I have said, from levies on course bets with bookmakers and from bets on the totalisator. The income of the board in 1974 was £1.39 million consisting mainly of £896,000 from a 5 per cent levy on course bets with bookmakers and £420,000 from a 20 per cent levy on losing bets on the tote. They reallocated £1.22 million to racing, the main elements being £770,000 for stakes, £160,000 for carriage of horses, that is to races, and £120,000 to the Turf Club. Since 1969-70 the board have got a capital grant of £100,000 each year from the Exchequer. This, together with part of their current surplus, is reallocated to racecourses as capital grants or loans for buildings, equipment and other amenities. Total capital expenditure at racecourses since 1969 is estimated at £2.1 million towards which the board contributed £1.9 million in loans and grants. I should like to avail of this opportunity to congratulate the board on their excellent work down through the years and to thank them and their staff for their very generous services.

May I refer also to other State bodies associated with bloodstock? There is the National Stud Company which helps bloodstock breeding by maintaining a corps of high quality stallions for service to breeders at reasonable fees. The company also co-operate with research workers in equine research and they conduct training courses in stud management. The company's share capital, which is held by the Minister for Finance, is used to buy stallions and to provide buildings, yards and other facilities at the studs.

I should like to remark that very considerable capital has recently been expended over a period in reconstructing and developing the buildings, yards and other facilities at the stud. The present investment in share capital is £1.5 million. The allocation of capital for the stud in 1975 was £300,000.

The other State body dealing with the horse industry, Bord na gCapall, is mainly concerned with equitation. At the beginning of this year they took over incentive schemes for horse-breeding formerly operated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The board promotes sales of horses, gives grants to show societies and teams competing in international competitions. They conduct training courses and register riding establishments. They hope later to establish a national equitation centre. The State grant to Bord na gCapall for 1975 was £650,000. Its total contribution in 1975 to the horse industry and the three State bodies I have mentioned will be £2.5 million.

I shall now turn to the sections of the Bill before the House. Section 1 contains the usual definitions. Section 2 provides that the consent of the Minister for the Public Service must be got before the Racing Board determines the remuneration of its chief officer. This is in line with a number of recent provisions in Acts dealing with State companies where the remuneration is fixed in consultation with the Department of the Public Service and the various national wage agreements applied to the staffs concerned. Section 3 (a) provides that in case of on course winning bets bookmakers will charge the levy on total winnings and deduct that levy from the amount being paid to the punter. This is the existing practice which is now being formalised. Section 3 (b) increases the maximum levy chargeable on course bets from the present 5 per cent to a maximum—with the consent of the Minister for Finance—of 10 per cent. As I mentioned earlier, I understand that it is the intention of the Racing Board to increase it by only 1 per cent.

Mr. Coughlan

Has the Taoiseach said that it is at present 5 per cent and the Racing Board now intend to make it a 6 per cent charge?

The Taoiseach

That is so. Sections 4 and 5 provide for an appeal committee and prescribe its constitution, powers and procedures. The committee of three will hear appeals from bookmakers in cases where the Racing Board refuses, suspends or revokes course betting permits.

This is a change from the original Act but it is in line with the terms of a similar provision in the Acts establishing Bord na gCon, where an appeal committee was provided for.

Section 6 gives more authority to officers of the Racing Board for inspecting bookmakers' record in order to prevent evasion of levies.

Section 8 prescribes bigger penalties for bookmakers for operating without permits, failing to pay levies, failing to keep or falsifying records, obstructing officers of the board when inspecting documents or failing to produce documents.

Section 7 gives the board authority to operate staff superannuation schemes subject to the approval of the Minister for the Public Service. The board already have such a scheme but there is some doubt about its authority to operate such a scheme and this section provides formal authority for the superannuation scheme. Section 9 is the usual provision for laying statutory regulations before each House of the Oireachtas. This again remedies an omission in the original Act.

In brief, the Bill will enable the Racing Board to charge higher levies on course bets with bookmakers and thus acquire more funds for such purposes as prize money and racecourse amenities. There is a general recognition that if racing is to maintain the position which it has, it is essential that the stakes here should keep pace with inflation and indeed, that the stakes should be of sufficient value to attract and maintain the number of horses and to provide a reasonable prospect of return to those who race horses.

Mr. Crowley

It is the lowest in Europe at the moment.

The Taoiseach

One of them. Across the water, which used to be a good example, they are finding that they should do the same. It also provides for the appeals committee to which bookmakers can appeal from decisions of the Racing Board to refuse, suspend or revoke course betting permits. It provides for better control over bookmakers' records with higher penalties. Again the penalties are being revised to take account of present day money values. Finally, it provides for ministerial control over the remuneration of the board's chief officer and for the staff superannuation scheme. I recommend the Bill for the approval of the House.

Mr. O'Malley

In general, subject to certain reservations to which I shall refer later, we on this side of the House are prepared to support this Bill.

We appreciate the fact that, in particular, prize money in this country for racing is extremely low. I am not clear if the average figure is above or below that in Britain but it is very much below the figures in any other European country. On the basis of the figures which the Taoiseach has just given, I have made a calculation in relation to prize money in 1974, when £1.4 million was devoted to prize money and when on the Taoiseach's figures there were 4,600 horses in training. If you divide these figures into one another, you come out with a figure of £304 prize money in respect of each horse in training. This is an abnormally low figure. It would be a conservative estimate to say that today it costs £1,200 per annum to keep a horse in training.

The Taoiseach

If you got it as low as that you would be doing well.

Mr. O'Malley

It could be a lot more. Even at my conservative figure the average owner is showing a loss straightway of £900 for each horse in training.

One of the consequences of that situation is that owners and trainers find that they cannot keep horses in training unless they can from time to time make substantial coups in bets on their horses. The consequences of some of these efforts to win large sums of money have not always been ideal from the point of view of the average punter and the general public interest. I would be very happy to support anything which would increase prize money and which would lessen the necessity that exists at the moment for people who own or train horses to win substantial sums of money in betting on them on occasion in order to keep going.

Another factor which has subsidised owners of horses for quite a long time has been the fact that many of our owners are also breeders and up to 1973 the profits generally from breeding were pretty good. In 1974 the breeding situation was a disaster and most breeders lost heavily that year. Only a few of them made any worthwhile profit and this, of course, inevitably will have a serious effect on racing in the Irish context for quite a short time. The most important provision in this Bill is the proposal to allow the raising of the on-course levy payable to the Racing Board from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. The Taoiseach has stated here that it is proposed by the Racing Board at the moment to raise it only to 6 per cent. This is the information they gave me also when I telephoned them about it. I asked them if they could guarantee that the figure would stay at 6 per cent and they informed me that they could not give any guarantee beyond this year, which would appear to indicate that there is a likelihood of an increase beyond 6 per cent in 1976.

Mr. Coughlan

Who said that?

Mr. O'Malley

Mr. Walsh, the secretary of the Racing Board.

Mr. Coughlan

That is not right. The Taoiseach has given an assurance and I will take his advice before I take advice from the Deputy.

Mr. O'Malley

The position is as the Taoiseach has stated, that this year it is proposed to raise the levy from 5 per cent to 6 per cent when this Bill has been passed but we have no guarantee as to what further increases up to a limit of 10 per cent may take place in the future. In the circumstances in which racing generally finds itself at the moment we have no objection to the increase from 5 per cent to 6 per cent, but we think that any increase over and above that which might or might not become necessary in future years should not be effected simply by the Racing Board making a regulation with the consent of the Minister for Finance to raise the levy to some further figure between 6 and 10 per cent, possibly as high as 10 per cent.

If the Racing Board can make a case for a further increase over and above the 6 per cent, they should come back to this House for further legislation to enable them to do that. For this reason we propose, while not opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, to put down an amendment on Committee Stage to limit the increase that is proposed in section 3 of the Bill to 6 per cent. If it should happen that in future years the Racing Board feel that they need a greater percentage, let them make out their case and come back to the Oireachtas for authority to do that. The 6 per cent figure, of course, is going to be a bit difficult in practice because the 5 per cent was the equivalent in old money of one shilling in the £ and the deduction was quite easily made. With 6 per cent it is going to be less easy, particularly on the smaller bets. It will entail much dealing in very small coins which normally do not feature on race courses. I am not sure that these coins are going to be available.

While that is the major proposal in the Bill, and the major proposal in section 3, it is by no means the only proposal there. I want to refer to paragraph (a) of section 3 which was not really adverted to at all by the Taoiseach but which could be very significant. That paragraph (a) proposes the addition of certain words to subsection (1) of section 27 of the 1945 Act. The effect of the additional words which section 3 (a) proposes will allow a bookmaker, or indeed compel him, to deduct from the stake and winnings of a winning bet which he pays to a punter a levy at the prescribed rate which at the moment is 5 per cent, and presumably will be 6 per cent.

Mr. Coughlan

There is no presumption about it, it is a fact.

Mr. O'Malley

It is very significant that these words allowing a bookmaker to do this should have to be added in this Bill because if you go back to section 27 of the 1945 Act and read subsection (1) which is very brief, it seems clear from that that the entitlement to deduct the levy is confined to the bet or to the stake only and not to the total returnable to the punter. The subsection is brief and I will quote it so that Deputies will be aware of what is in it:

Every person who, as a licensed bookmaker, enters into a course bet on or after the commencement of this section shall pay to the Board a levy calculated at the rate of the prescribed percentage for the time being of the amount of such course bet.

A course bet is the amount staked, it is not the amount returnable to the punter. My interpretation of subsection (1) of section 27 of the 1945 Act is borne out by the fact that it is now proposed to add these words in paragraph (a) of section 3 of this Bill. It is now proposed to add the words and if the subject of the bet is determined in favour of the person with whom the bookmaker enters into the bet, that is the punter, the bookmaker shall from the total amount which he would otherwise pay or credit to that person in respect of the bet make a deduction calculated at the rate of that percentage of that total amount, that is the stake and winnings.

The Taoiseach

That is the present practice.

Mr. O'Malley

Yes, but I am drawing the attention of the Taoiseach and the House to the point that while it is the present practice and has been for many years, there appears to have been no statutory authority for it. It may well be that on the one hand bookmakers have paid to the Racing Board considerably larger sums than they need have paid and, secondly and more importantly, a large number of punters throughout the country have had deductions made from their winnings by bookmakers, in respect of which the bookmakers did not have any statutory authority.

Mr. Coughlan

The Deputy is listening to the wrong bookmakers.

Mr. O'Malley

I want to make it clear before I am interrupted again that the bookmakers did not benefit by the improper deductions they made because, needless to say, they paid those deductions over to the Racing Board.

Mr. Coughlan

What does the Deputy know about bookmakers?

Mr. O'Malley

Nonetheless it would appear on a strict reading of subsection (1) of section 27, as proved by paragraph (a) of section 3, that up to now and even at the present time until the Bill is passed, there is no statutory authority to deduct a levy from anything other than the stake on the course bet. If there was authority to deduct from the stake and winnings paragraph (a) here would not be necessary. If it were only to remove a doubt or something of that nature, the normal drafting procedure would be to start off paragraph (a) here by some form of words such as "For the purpose of the removal of doubts" and add the words and say that it "shall be presumed that these words always form part of section 27 of the 1945 Act". That is not done and on the face of it it appears that the proposal now is that as and from the passing of this Bill and not before that the stake and winnings of a punter's bet will be liable to deduction of levy on the total amount.

As we are all aware, the practice has been to deduct on the total amount. It appears clear now that there was no statutory authority for that practice and the fact that there was not may well give rise to difficulties, because it was the invariable practice. I would suggest to the Taoiseach, in order to prevent a lot of difficulties for the Racing Board and for bookmakers, that some words should be added to section 3 (a) to make it clear that the normal practice of deducting the levy shall be regarded as having always been the law. There are good reasons why one should not favour retrospective legislation of this kind but it does not really matter in this situation to validate the practice retrospectively because it has been pretty well a universal practice for many years. Nonetheless it is a serious situation; until this Bill is passed what has been an invariable practice for many years and has been enforced by the Racing Board and by bookmakers in relation to punters placing bets with them does not have any statutory authority whatever.

The provisions in this Bill relating to the establishment of an appeal committee is welcome. While similar provisions were contained in the Greyhound Industry Act, 1968, they were not in the Racecourses Act, 1945 and the bookmakers were certainly at a disadvantage in the absence of an appeal committee. For that reason I welcome the provisions establishing a committee. I am glad to note that the provisions in the proposed Bill are not exactly the same as those contained in the Greyhound Industry Act, 1968, as certain difficulties in practice had been encountered in connection with that Act and the necessary amendments to the Greyhound Industry Act are incorporated in this Bill even though they are not yet made to the Greyhound Industry Act, 1968.

Section 5 (8) (d) provides that a person can be prosecuted for refusing to take an oath and refusing to answer questions and can be liable to a fine of £500, at the discretion of the court, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. It is only a minor point but that should not be there. Nobody in any court can be compelled to take an oath. He should be allowed affirm or swear in other ways that are open to witnesses. Section 8 increases the penalties very substantially. I presume such huge increases are necessary but they seem very large.

Section 9 is the normal sort of provision for regulations to be made by the Racing Board and laid before each House. It has the effect that the regulations come into force straight away and, if they were annulled within 21 sitting days, that would be without prejudice to anything that was done under them. Is that particular type of provision suitable in this instance? If the board have power to raise the levy, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, would it not be advisable, if the amendment I suggested were not accepted about confining the increase to one per cent, that any regulations made by the board under section 9 increasing the levy would not come into force until passed by Dáil Éireann rather than have it come in and have the increase possibly disallowed afterwards when they would have to revert to the old figure with consequent inconvenience and difficulty?

There are a number of smaller points to which I shall advert on Committee Stage. I have been looking at the Racing Board's accounts for 1974. While they have got a grant of £100,000 from the Exchequer since 1969 last year they made provision for the payment of slightly over £100,000 in income tax to the Exchequer. The grant they receive is unusual to some extent because they pay £241 more to the Exchequer in their provision for income tax than they are receiving. That was not true in previous years as the income tax provision was very much lower. The grant of £100,000 which they get is a grant on paper only because they are paying more to the Exchequer than they are getting from it.

The principle objective of the Racing Board in trying to increase their income by way of levy is to increase prize money. They are also anxious to increase grants to racecourses. Quite a number of the privately-owned courses have incurred losses in the last year or so and some are encountering great difficulties in carrying on. I had hoped that the Taoiseach would have dealt with the proposals of the Racing Board announced a year or two ago to grade courses into five different categories. It is an important matter for the future of Irish racing and I hope the Taoiseach will deal with the up-to-date situation when he is replying.

Many people are of the opinion that, because the amounts being staked at race meetings are increasing considerably, the yield from levies, both from totalisator and course bookmakers is increasing so much that it is not necessary to increase the percentage of the levy. In view of the Racing Board's proposal to give a major increase this year to prize money I am of the opinion that there should be no reasonable objection to a one per cent increase in the levy provided it is confined by statute to that one per cent.

Many people think that the fairly large sums the Exchequer takes from racing on off-course betting tax should, to some extent at least, be reflected in grants to racing. Deputy Crowley will develop that point later. It is one that should be borne in mind. While there is not a great deal of off-course betting on Irish racing—most of it seems to take place on English racing —nonetheless, the very fact that race meetings are held gives the Exchequer a source of income they would not otherwise have. It is not unfair to ask them to put back some part of that source of income into the sport itself particularly as the 1974 accounts of the Racing Board seem to indicate that they are now paying more income tax to the Exchequer than the Exchequer is giving in grants.

There has been a fair amount of publicity in the last week of allegations that the increase in the on-course levy will give rise to illegal betting. I do not think there is, in fact, foundation for those allegations because there is very little illegal betting on racecourse, if any.

The matter is quite different so far as off-course betting is concerned. The warning was given here by a number of speakers on the budget last January to the Minister for Finance that the proposal which he then put into force to increase off-course betting tax to 20 per cent would lead to a lot of illegal betting off the course in order to avoid what most people regard as a totally penal rate of tax. Our forebodings in that respect have been proved right. I am told there is quite an amount of illegal off-course betting being carried on at the moment because of the penal rate of taxation which exists on off-course bets. This is regrettable from several points of view.

It means that the State in the long run will be left out of it. Secondly, the general public have not got the protection of betting with a licensed bookmaker, who has to apply to renew his licence and his permit to the courts and the Revenue Commissioners every year, when he is subject to objections by anybody who is aggrieved by any dispute with him. The public have not got that protection now with the increasing amount of betting that is going on with unlicensed bookmakers off the course. The whole economics of the off-course betting tax should be looked at again by the Government in view of the damage that in fact it is doing at this time.

To sum up, we are prepared to welcome this Bill subject to the various provisos that I have mentioned and in particular to the fact that we think it should be written into this statue that the increase will be to 6 per cent only and if the racing board think at some future time that they require a further increase in the rate, and they are able to put up a sufficiently good case for it, then let them come back to the Oireachtas and let it be put before the Oireachtas by way of a Bill.

Mr. Crowley

Like Deputy O'Malley, in the main, we welcome very much the ramifications of this Bill. As the Taoiseach said in his introductory statement the horse racing industry is a very, very important industry. It is an industry that has brought a lot of fame to this country. It is one that a lot of small people in this country have considerably benefited from. The crafts of that industry have been handed down from generation to generation.

When we are discussing in this House anything to do with the horse racing industry we are discussing the commitment that the ordinary Irish small farmer has to that industry. It is absolutely vital that we have adequate funds provided for the benefit of horse racing, and indeed breeding, here. I know the Taoiseach takes a very personal and special interest in that industry. I know he is as aware as we are that the finances of that industry are heading for dangerous straits.

Deputy O'Malley referred to the fact that the 20 per cent off-course tax which is collected by the Exchequer does not go back into racing. That is something that we all feel very very strongly about. First of all, 20 per cent tax on off-course betting is a huge amount. It is a complete deterrent to people to bet with legitimate bookmakers. If that has to be persevered with and if the Government cannot see their way to changing that 20 per cent I would like to suggest that 50 per cent of the amount of the tax collected be ploughed back into the industry. The industry could gain enormously from that.

I had the satisfaction over the past couple of weeks of visiting one of the Middle East countries, Libya, and discussing there what our horse breeding industry and indeed our showjumping people could provide for the people in Libya. We had a visit from a delegation there and they bought £50,000 worth of our horses after spending just one week in the country, with a promise to come back and buy more.

The industry has gone through a bad year or two, but it is recovering and the potential for showjumpers and indeed for steeplechase horses in general is increasing at an enormous rate, especially in the developing countries. We should be ready and available to tap that vast new resource. We have some of the best bloodstock in the world, indeed some of the best bloodstock lines in the world. The National Stud are to be complimented for the way they have operated, very often on a virtual shoestring, and have been able to provide the Irish breeder with top class sires at very economic prices. This reinforces my argument and our wishes on this side of the House that as much as possible of the tax that is collected by off course bookmakers should be ploughed back. That would be a productive use of the money collected from betting. We are in a very fortunate position here in that we have the soil and the climate that seems to be the ideal blend for the breeding of horses.

It would be a pity, if not a disaster, if we did not cash in on that completely. If we deprive our racecourses and indeed our owners of earning money and of reinvesting in the industry we are losing a very valuable asset. While a lot of our racecourses are excellent there are other that need to have fairly large sums of money spent on them to bring them up to the standards that we would like to see them operating under. When we remember that our racecourses are the show pieces of our horses it reinforces our argument all the more that they should be brought up to the proper standards.

Under this Bill we could also refer to the display of our national jumping team. What are we doing to try to improve our national jumping team? I suppose the best advertisement that we could have for our horses or showjumpers would be for our team to do well and for our horses to win the various competitions they enter for. While we have German teams, American teams, English teams, all other kinds of teams with a lot of Irish bred horses in them winning the major trophies our team seem to be unable to get on the same scale of excellence that it had in former years. I do not know why this is happening. I am sure the personnel we have are excellent but I should like to know if they are being inhibited in any way because of lack of resources. I suspect that is possibly the major reason why our national show-jumping team has not been doing as well in recent years as they did in former years.

It is also important that the people involved in the industry in Bord na gCapall who met the Libyan delegation and showed them round to make sure they saw what was available on the Irish market, and the members of other boards involved in racing should have the appreciation of this House for what they are doing. I know, of course, that in a time of economic crisis it is hard to ask for money for what is considered by many to be a luxury industry. We know it is not a luxury industry, that it is a very important industry in the sense that it is giving vast employment. It is supplementing the income of many small farmers who keep the odd mare and breed the odd horse and sell at a good price thereby showing an extra profit they might not ordinarily make.

We should consider those involved in racing, the jockeys and trainers. I refer especially to the national hunt jockeys who go out in all kinds of weather and put their limbs—and sometimes their lives—at risk in giving entertainment. There is very little provision made for these people by way of any type of welfare fund. They are a very important section of our sporting community, but they are badly provided for. What can be more hazardous than jumping fences on a wet or icy winter's day and falling, maybe breaking one's neck or back?

Mr. Coughlan

The Deputy would make a good impression if he fell.

Mr. Crowley

We will see what kind of an impression the Deputy will create. We are waiting for his pearls of wisdom.

Mr. Coughlan

Belt away. I am not a front runner.

Mr. Power

The Deputy would only fall off a stool; he is a reactor.

Mr. Crowley

He is a counter-puncher. It is important that we should be able to devote some money from the Oireachtas towards a welfare fund for these jockeys.

The report of the racing board states that attendances were maintained at the level of recent years. The report states that a special committee was set up in April, 1973, to explore ways and means of attracting larger attendances and that this committee has done much research and its report and recommendations are expected shortly. Would the Taoiseach, when replying, tell the House if he has received any preliminary report from that committee and what action they intend to take to attract more people to race meetings?

As Deputy O'Malley said, we are in agreement with the general provisions of the Bill, subject to the 6 per cent being made a statutory limitation and that the racing board should have to come back to the House if they want to increase it to 7, 8, 9 or 10 per cent. On Committee Stage amendments will be put down by Deputy O'Malley to ensure that is done.

Mr. Coughlan

I should like to preface my remarks by expressing surprise and bewilderment that a man who is so attached to the industry is not present to plead the case for Fianna Fáil. I refer to Deputy Haughey, an owner and a breeder, who has been accepted by all bookmakers as a man of affluence. His word is accepted. I am surprised that a man of his standing who has also interested himself in another operation in regard to the racing industry generally, the sales of bloodstock, is not here to make the case for people who know nothing about what they are talking.

I refer particularly to Deputy O'Malley. I have regard for Deputy Crowley because he owns and trains horses. I cannot understand why amateurs are sent in to plead a case about which they do not know anything. If Deputy Haughey were making a case I would sit up and listen because I would know he was speaking from experience. I am surprised at a Deputy speaking on behalf of a profession and an industry about which he knows nothing. However, he has this connection——

Mr. Power

The needle is stuck.

Mr. Coughlan

——he is, as far as I know, an employee of another board, Bord na gCon, as a legal man, maybe that brought him in here, I do not know, but to speak on behalf of an honourable profession of which I have been a member for over 40 years and tell us what we should do about our own business is wrong. I do not go to solicitors to tell them what they should do. The Taoiseach, as a member of our fraternity—he is a racing man and knows something about it—met the bookmakers and discussed the Bill in detail. We assured him yesterday, having discussed the details, that we were satisfied with the introduction of this Bill.

I fought this Bill on many fronts in 1945. We never had recourse to any Minister, never mind a Taoiseach, until 1975. The late Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh introduced the Bill and we fought it. We got concessions, but like Deputy O'Malley, he new little or nothing about what he was doing. We advised him and he went some of the way with us.

In 1945, we had racing at 2½ per cent, 1/- in the £ and free transport. The admission fee to racecourses has not increased since 1945. We are the cheapest nation where racing and the bloodstock industry are concerned because of the fact that, with the co-operation of the public and the bookmakers, we made it possible for the small man Deputy Crowley referred to, to stay in business.

In our discussions with the Taoiseach yesterday, the bookmakers discussed the situation of the small breeder. We have the Taoiseach's ear and his concern because he is a man who understands the industry, not like some of the people who were talking about racecourses and horsebreeding today. I do not know whether I should have gone for holy water or spring water when I heard Deputy O'Malley prognosticating about something he did not know anything about.

Mr. O'Malley

If I was not here what would Deputy Coughlan have to talk about in this House?

Mr. Coughlan

I welcome this Bill.

Mr. O'Malley

Because no matter what it is about it is always about me.

Mr. Coughlan

Because Deputy O'Malley knows nothing at all about it and I would prefer to see Deputy Haughey here.

Debate adjourned.