Totalisator Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
3.—(1) The Minister may, if and whenever he thinks fit, grant to such persons as he thinks fit licences (in this Act referred to as totalisator licences) to set up, maintain, and work totalisators.
(2) Every totalisator licence shall operate to authorise the person to whom it is granted (who shall be named in the licence) to set up, maintain, and work a totalisator at the place and on the occasion or occasions or during the period specified in such licence but subject to the conditions and restrictions set out in such licence and to the regulations made by the Minister under this Act.
(3) The Minister may charge such fee for the grant of any totalisator licence as he shall think fit, and any such fee may be either a single payment or a series of periodical payments and may be either of fixed or of variable amount, and in the latter case may, if the Minister so thinks fit, be calculated by reference to the sums staked by means of the totalisator to which the licence relates.
(4) A totalisator licence may, as the Minister shall think fit, be granted in respect of any one or more specified places or in respect of all places of one or more specified classes or descriptions in Saorstát Eireann or any specified part of Saorstát Eireann and may be granted for one or more specified occasions or for all occasions of one or more specified classes or descriptions occurring during a specified period.
(5) 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.
In the absence of Senator Comyn, I wish formally to propose the following amendment which stands in his name:
Section 3, sub-section (1). To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(1) A Circuit Court Judge may, if and whenever he thinks fit, grant to any person a certificate entitling such person to apply for and obtain from the Revenue Commissioners a licence (in this Act referred to as a totalisator licence) to set up, maintain and work a totalisator within the area included in the jurisdiction of the said Judge for such period not exceeding one year and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be set out in such certificate."
I have not studied the particular section, but I believe the general principle of this amendment, and of other following amendments is that the control of the operations of the totalisator will be placed in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners.
This, the first amendment of a series, would completely upset the Bill. It would mean that the person looking for a licence would have to satisfy the Circuit Court Judge in order to get a licence. The setting up of a totalisator would involve considerable expenditure, and nobody would apply for a licence to set up a totalisator if a period not exceeding one year is fixed.
I myself have an amendment down endeavouring to take away from the Minister the powers under which a licence should be granted, and transferring them to the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners, for instance, grant licences in the case of publicans. The Minister is not approached by those about to establish public houses or wholesale spirit groceries, or something like that.
There is no understanding of the position of the totalisator. I think we must have one licensee for the totalisator and that it would be impossible to have a number of firms running totalisators. This is wholly and solely a matter of revenue. If there is reason at all for intervention it would be absurd to have a judge deciding whether a totalisator was to be set up, say, at Leopardstown or not. That is a matter of business between those who propose to set up the totalisator and the Minister for Finance from the finance point of view.
I am acting in Senator Comyn's absence and after the Minister's explanation the only course is to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On behalf of Senator Comyn I move this amendment, which also stands over his name:—
Section 3, sub-section (2). To delete in line 41 the word "Minister" and to substitute therefor the words "Revenue Commissioners."
I am sorry Senator Comyn is not present. He spoke at length on this matter on the last occasion, and pointed out in a way I cannot, because I am not a lawyer, that it is improper these things should be in the hands of the Minister, and that they should be in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners. As I understand, it is most unusual to place these matters under the control of the Minister.
I think Senator Comyn's main objection, from the constitutional point of view, was not to this section, but to Section 6, where the Minister has the right to fix the maximum penalty. This particular section only gives the Minister the right to come to a bargain with the licensee of the totalisator. You are not going to have a totalisator set up in every racecourse, and you must have some particular body responsible who are going to set up this very expensive machine and work it in the interests of racing. The constitutional objection does not apply to Section 3 as it does to Section 6, for this is really administration and not legislation.
I do not think there would be any great difference in having the Revenue Commissioners instead of the Minister for Finance. In this case the Commissioners would not issue licences. They might refuse to issue licences, so that the Minister would be forced to bring Section 4 into operation and have the Revenue Commissioners. It might leave the Revenue Commissioners in the position of holding up the grant of a licence.
There is, perhaps, a point of constitutional value in connection with this. The Commissioners give power to issue licences and, according to sub-section (3), charge fees. This is very like the power to levy taxes within certain narrow limits. I do not wish to make a great deal of the difference between the Minister making regulations and issuing licences, and the Revenue Commissioners issuing licences, although the Revenue Commissioners are looked upon as a kind of judicial or semi-judicial authority, and that takes them out of the category of a political Ministry. I do not think the point is made specially for this Bill, but in its effect it is a precedent of a constitutional character. Touching the same problem, I have put in an amendment regarding the fee to be charged to the effect that such fee shall only be chargeable after having the sanction of the Dáil. I think that is important. As the section stands, it gives the Minister power to make charges without legislative sanction. In my opinion, that is rather unwise. If I understood Senator Comyn rightly, when he was speaking on this he touched on an aspect of the question I had raised on Section 6. While I recognise that all these sections were in the original Bill I think they were allowed in by mistake, and that they should not be in the Bill.
I think this is a ridiculous amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
"(3) The Revenue Commissioners shall charge a fee for the grant of every totalisator licence, to consist of the sum of one pound sterling, payable on the issue of such licence, together with a further payment or series of periodical payments to be calculated at the rate of five per cent. on the sums staked by means of the totalisator to which the licence relates."
The object of this amendment is that the charges shall be laid down in black and white in the Bill. As it stands, the Bill allows the Minister to do as he likes. I think it should be laid down clearly what is going to happen. The making of arrangements by issuing Orders has become a great deal too common. It is much better to have it set out definitely what the charges are. As regards the 5 per cent., I understand from Senator Parkinson that they have already offered 2½ per cent. and they are prepared to accept that. Let that be put down. All I want by the amendment is that it should be clearly set down what is to be done instead of leaving it to somebody to be making changes as often as they like.
If 5 per cent. were charged the totalisator could not possibly operate. The proposal here is to charge the licensee 2½ per cent., and those who are going to operate the totalisator have agreed to that. What is proposed in this section is to enable the Minister to make a bargain with the people who are going to run the totalisator. But even if it were necessary by common consent to alter that bargain it will be a matter of detailed examination of the accounts. Those who are licensed to work the totalisator would be free from any increase if the totalisator is able to work successfully and pay its way at 2½ per cent. Whether the totalisator would be able to pay 2½ per cent. would depend on circumstances, such as the tax on bookmakers and things of that kind. The whole matter is difficult. You cannot get firm figures on this particular matter, because it is entirely a new question. The only way to work it is to enable the Minister to make his bargain with people to whom he sees fit to issue the licence.
I suppose the public have to be taken into account. Is not this 5 per cent. the amount which would be deducted from the winnings of the public who have made the bets? If the tax is too high and the public will not stand it the totalisator will be a total failure.
I am quite prepared to leave it at 2½ per cent.
The Minister is perfectly right. This is a brand new thing, and it is not possible to decide on what final amount they will be able to carry on. Once they found out what rate the public will stand then the Minister and the racing authority will divide the amount among themselves, but if the public will not bet there will be nothing to divide.
There has been a good deal of talk about this Totalisator Bill. I understand the 2½ per cent. basis is going to be fixed for 15 years. I do not think we should walk in to unknown territory and tie ourselves to a charge on the basis of 2½ per cent. for 15 years, especially where there is mutual uncertainty as to how this thing will work. We should have a year's trial and then an equitable basis could be arrived at.
Is it not a fact that the installation of these machines will involve financial cost of some magnitude? It would be out of the question to expect any person to instal them at the cost of £40,000 or £50,000 unless assured that they would continue for a number of years, say ten years or fifteen years.
I quite agree with the rates being fixed for fifteen years, but I think there should be one year's trial before tying ourselves down to any percentage. There seems to be mutual consent between the Minister and the people representing the totalisator.
I would like to point out to Senator Connolly that this totalisator is to be run as a nonproprietary undertaking. It is not to be put up by people who expect to make dividends or profits of any kind. To provide totalisators for the whole of the racing would take £50,000 or £60,000. No non-proprietary body would dream of assuming the responsibility of undertaking the expenditure for the setting up of machines of that kind without the assurance of a reasonable period for their operation.
The people who put up the money are assured that the people who are granted the licence will not be charged more than 2½ per cent., but it might turn out that they could not work the machine at that. As the whole thing is an experiment, we must have a mutual bargaining policy.
Am I to understand the working of this section is to effect a tax on a bet that is made through the totalisator, just as a bet is taxed under the operations of the Betting Act? In that case surely it is reasonable to say the sums that are to be levied on the people should be stated in the enactments, or at least they should be fixed ultimately by the legislature and not the Minister. That is the only point I fix upon, and I think the intention of the Senator in putting the amendment down is not so much on account of the fixing of the rate as to having embodied in the Act whatever the figure may be. That should be embodied in the Act, and not allow the Minister the privilege or liberty to rise or fall and fix any sum he wishes under the name of a licence duty, but which is in fact a tax upon the people. I think that is utterly unconstitutional.
Take into consideration the statement that has been made by Senator Parkinson, that the running of the totalisator will not be by a proprietary concern, but that it will be run and operated not in the interests of making of profit. This is rather an experiment, and is in the interests of the horse-breeding industry. In view of that fact, and considering that it is an innovation, it is desirable that the section should be elastic and that the Minister should have the opportunity of having the totalisator in operation a short time before he definitely lays down the rules with regard to the fees to be charged.
The difficulty in the case of a number of people, such as myself, is to understand what the totalisator involves. It seems to me, from the declarations we have heard, that we have a crowd of benefactors who will give their services free in the working of the totalisator. Experience of that kind is rare in this country, particularly when one goes in for horse-racing. Would the Minister explain to those who are ignorant on the matter the principle of the totalisator? It is suggested that 2½ per cent. of the total should be paid for the State. I do not know if the rest will be distributed among the winners who back horses. Are we to take it for granted that the gentlemen who work the totalisator are to get no remuneration?
You are. I may point out that those who are going to run the totalisator are going to do so without fee or reward, or expectation of dividends, and of the total sum subtracted from the totalisator 2½ per cent. will go to the Government and the balance will go towards horse-breeding and racing and the amelioration of people who attend the race meetings.
A control board is set up by the Irish Turf Club and the National Hunt Committee.
Is there any representative of the Minister on it?
There are representatives of the interests of the racecourse executives, breeders and the owners and trainers.
In addition to the 2½ per cent. paid to the State there is to be a profit made by the totalisator at the expense of the backers?
Merely a deduction and not a profit.
I am in favour of the totalisator, and I am not speaking against it. When the Betting Bill was introduced I spoke strongly against betting houses, and I said that there was great danger to the State involved. That legislation produced a great deal of gambling. Instead of being opposed to it, I am an advocate of the totalisator. I have seen it worked often and have occasionally risked some money on it. The matter I am concerned with is the substitution of the Revenue Commissioner for the Minister. I do not see any harm in that, and the Minister himself says there is no difference. I understand from what I have heard, it is more constitutional that the Revenue Commissioners shall have the power rather than the Minister. I must say that I have great confidence in the control of the Turf Club and the National Hunt stewards. I think it could not be put into better hands.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Cathaoirleach
I should like to make a statement in connection with the Finance Bill. I stated that the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill would be taken next Wednesday. I now find that the twenty-one days within which the Bill must be passed will probably expire on Wednesday, and on that account I think we had better take the Committee Stage to-morrow and pass the Final Stage on Wednesday.
It will become law within twenty-one days, and then we could not make any recommendations.
Cathaoirleach
We could not do anything with it. We must do it within twenty-one days.
In that case I would like to make a definite and formal protest against the procedure which brings a Bill before us for Second Reading a day before the expiry of the time, without rights left to us.
I think that this was not the Minister's fault.
Cathaoirleach
I am informed that we shall have had it for twenty-one days next Wednesday.
I think that one day's consideration for Committee is entirely too short.
Cathaoirleach
We shall have to-morrow and Wednesday.
All I am asking is that we shall not consider the Bill in Committee to-morrow, because we will not have time to read the Bill through, to put down any recommendations or to consider recommendations already handed in.
This is not the Minister's fault at all. This Bill was down for Second Reading twice last week, but at the express wish of members of the Senate the Juries Bill was taken instead. The Finance Bill was adjourned for that reason and for no other. We have all had this Bill for more than a week. We know what is in it and we know the recommendations that we wish to make, so that, while the objection raised by Senator Johnson is a real one, I do not think that it really applies to this case.
I do not think the Senator's statement is correct. I think I remember that it was stated last week that we could not go on with the Finance Bill because the Minister was not here. I do not blame him for that, because he was engaged in the Dáil.
I asked the President to deputise for me, and I think he came.
I think the Minister was asked if it would meet his convenience to put it off for a week.
Cathaoirleach
The position is that we must deal with it by next Wednesday, or it will pass as it left the Dáil.
I think that we should dispose of all stages on Wednesday.
Cathaoirleach
I will take a show of hands.
A show of hands having been taken:
Cathaoirleach
It is clearly the wish of the House to take the Committee Stage to-morrow.
I move:—
Section 3. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) Where the Minister grants a licence to any person or persons to operate in any place or places or where the Revenue Commissioners set up, maintain or work a totalisator at any place or places the persons having the management of such place or places shall provide a place or places whether in a building or not where licensed bookmakers may carry on their business and to which the public may resort for the purpose of betting, and the charge to a licensed bookmaker and to any assistant accompanying him for admission to such place or places for the purpose of the licensed bookmaker's business shall, in the case of a licensed bookmaker not exceed five times the amount and in the case of an assistant not exceed the amount of the charge made to members of the public for admission to the place or places where the licensed bookmaker intends to carry on his business."
In asking the House and the Minister to give some consideration to this amendment I draw attention to the fact that the term in the Bill leaves it within the power of owners of racecourses, if they set up, maintain and manage a totalisator, to exterminate the bookmakers. I think it is only reasonable that bookmakers should have the right to enter any racecourse, as they have done hitherto, and that the owners should not be in a position to demand exorbitant or prohibitive fees for entrance to the ring. The Bill does not provide for these rights, nor is power given under the section which gives power to the Minister to make regulations to compel third parties, such as racecourse owners, to recognise the right of the bookmakers to enter the ring and to carry on their business on reasonable terms. The amendment is intended merely to secure to the bookmaker the right to enter as heretofore at a reasonable price. It is quite possible that those who run totalisators may say to the bookmaker: "You may come in all right but we will charge you special fees," and to make the fees such that it would be impossible for the bookmaker to carry on. I remember hearing in the Dáil the Minister and others supporting the Totalisator Bill stating that the rights that the bookmakers had up to the present would be protected. I am informed that the Turf Club and others associated with this movement have given an undertaking that the bookmakers' rights will be protected, but I think, in view of all the circumstances, these guarantees having been given, they ought to be put into the Bill to make it clear, because we can imagine the possibility of the totalisator not doing very well, and those in charge of it saying: "It cannot do well, because we have competition." If they are free to do so, they might make some rule to prohibit bookmakers from coming in in competition. It is on that account that I ask the Minister to give this consideration, and I recommend the amendment to the House.
I am prepared to accept this amendment, though—I am not stressing this point—I heard some people suggest that instead of having this five times the amount, it should not exceed £5, and that his assistants should be charged at the ordinary public rate. However, that was only a point put to me. I am quite prepared to accept the amendment.
It has been said that the Turf Club gave an undertaking. They did not give an undertaking, and they do not think that such an amendment as this is necessary. I can quite understand that executives might make it expensive for bookmakers to come in, or might prevent them. We are not going to stand against this amendment. I ask the Minister, if he accepts it, as he said he would, to protect the bookmakers themselves, to protect the racing public and to maintain the authority of the Turf Club by inserting these words after the word "bookmaker"—"provided they are not disqualified persons under any recognised rules of racing." I take it that the Senator will accept these words in the interests of the racing public and in the interests of the bookmakers themselves. It would make the position of the racing authorities impossible if they were not inserted.
Speaking on behalf of the Control Board, I may say that they will have no objection to the implications in Senator Byrne's amendment. But we suggest, in the interests of the bookmakers as well as in the general interest of racing, that it should be a fixed sum of £5 for the larger ring and £1 for the outside ring, and that the assistants should be allowed in by paying the ordinary admission fee paid by the public. That would ease the situation in many ways by preventing covetous owners of race tracks from raising the price to the public in order that they could charge the substantial amount of five times the entrance fee to the bookmakers.
There is one point that might be cleared up before we proceed further. Senator Byrne spoke of some understanding being reached, or being implied, in connection with the Turf Club that would deal with the bookmaking fraternity fairly. That is, I think, on the assumption that the scope of the Bill is confined to horse racecourses. Supposing there is a proposal to operate the totalisator in connection with greyhound racing, what would happen to the fund then? Are the profits to go to the development of horse-breeding? I want to draw attention to the fact that, as far as I can understand the Bill, its scope is not confined to horse-racing, and I think we should at least understand that there are possibilities other than horse-racing.
I am totally opposed to this amendment, because I do not think that bookmakers are any great advantage. But I would agree that they should be allowed into the racecourses if there were no licensed bookmaking houses in towns, where I think they are an absolute pest and have done the greatest possible harm. I think that nearly everybody agrees with that. If the bookmakers could be confined to the racecourses I would not mind this amendment passing.
I support the point of view expressed by Senator Milroy. The Bill deals with certain apparatus. It does not necessarily mean the totalisator that the race-track owners and the Turf Club have in mind at the moment. It will deal with any kind of machine that satisfies the definition, to be used in any kind of place, enclosed or outside race meetings, or in a bookmakers' club. That will all depend upon the Minister and upon the Minister's discretion. The proposal is that we should intervene and say that the proprietors of these race tracks, which it has been emphasised are private bodies, shall be compelled to do a certain thing, to admit certain people to do certain business on their property, as a condition for the issue of the licence by the Minister. We are to put into the Bill certain conditions which the Minister must adhere to before he grants a licence, but we are not prepared to put into the Bill anything for the protection of the public in regard to the fee that is to be charged by way of duty. There seems to me to be a contradiction there, considered from the point of view of the legislature, that is hardly defensible. We should be more concerned about the necessity for keeping the fixing the charge upon the public under the control of the legislature more definitely even than the protection of the bookmakers. I should have thought that the interests of the bookmakers, from what I used to hear of them from Deputy Shaw, as to race meetings generally, would have been quite secure in the keeping of the owners of the race tracks. I am very doubtful indeed as to the advisability of putting this kind of provision into the Bill, leaving to the Minister the right to make conditions and restrictions. We are asked to say in respect of bookmakers what those restrictions shall be, and I do not think that the Seanad should agree to limit the Minister's rights in that respect, if they are not prepared to limit his rights in respect of the very much bigger thing—the fixing of the charges to be made to the racing public.
I think that Senator Johnson quite misunderstands the reason why I drew attention to this aspect of the matter. I drew attention to it to emphasise what I thought was the equity of Senator Byrne's proposal, that there are other possibilities in the scope of this Bill that have not been discussed up to the present—where the understanding of the Turf Club and other parties would in no way operate, and where, though there might be no statutory power to exclude this particular section of the community from race meetings, they could be excluded in another way— by exorbitant charges. I have no interest whatever in racing of any kind, but I want to dissent very strongly from the reflections which Senator Moore has passed on these people. He referred to the pests which have been produced by the betting houses. I think it is quite well known to anyone who knows the circumstances that the regulation of their business by the legislature did a great deal to eliminate certain abuses and certain evils which were associated with it and has raised the matter to the position that at least that section of the community has been given a statutory right. When they are under the protection of that, I think it is not fair to treat them as if they were pariahs or pests of society. This amendment is to protect this section of the community. I think it should be passed for that reason, and I see no reason why there should be any further discussion on the matter, seeing that the Minister himself has agreed to accept it.
I do not regard this as being by any means in the interests of bookmakers. It represents itself to me as being in the interests of the public, because it is just possible—I do not think the possibility is very great—that if we had not this the race executives might exclude bookmakers from the courses and force the public to bet with the totalisator to the public's disadvantage. This will ensure that there will be competition and that the terms offered by the totalisator must be at least as favourable as those offered by the bookmakers.
In regard to Senator Milroy's point about setting up the totalisator elsewhere, under Section 2 no bookmaker could set up a totalisator in his own premises. Section 2 prohibits a person who has not a licence from setting up a totalisator, and the intention is to give no licence for a totalisator except the licence that will be given to this body.
Does the Senator accept my suggested alteration?
If we accepted the suggested alteration we might be told that we are making laws for the bigger men in the bookmaking business, and it is to get over that and to give the man in the outer ring a chance——
Not the small man—the dishonest man—any man who has been warned off the Turf for offences reported by his own body. There is a committee of bookmakers and others, and if they report a man as a defaulter he is not allowed into the enclosure. If we omitted the words I have suggested he would be admitted. If you agree that such men should be admitted the racing executive must let them in, and, of course, all their authority would be gone. The amendment I suggested was to add at the end: "provided this shall not apply to defaulters under any recognised rules of racing." That is in the interests of the public, because otherwise these men would go on in and bet with people.
How could a man be a licensed bookmaker if he was a defaulter? Is it possible for a defaulting bookmaker to get a licence?
There is no such thing as a licensed bookmaker. Anyone can go into the course and start to make a book. The Senator could do so to-morrow.
This amendment merely applies to the licensed bookmaker. These men are all licensed bookmakers. How can a licensed bookmaker be a defaulter?
I think if the original amendment is to be accepted, this new amendment is absolutely necessary in the interests of racing.
I think the position is that probably the bookmaker who defaulted would not have his licence renewed. He might not, if he were not convicted of a crime, be deprived of his licence during the period for which the licence ran.
I have a good deal of sympathy with Senator Sir Walter Nugent's object, but it seems to me that "recognised rules of racing" is rather a loose phrase to put into an Act of Parliament. What are the rules of racing?
Cathaoirleach
They are recognised in every country.
Who makes them? By inserting this phrase in the Bill I think we would bind ourselves to anything that the racing body might do.
They are made in every country in the world by the Turf Clubs of those countries and by the National Hunt Committees. They are inter-changeable: a man warned off in England is automatically warned off in Ireland, in France, in Germany, and everywhere where the rules are recognised. A horse belonging to a man running under unrecognised rules would not be allowed to run under the rules, and a horse disqualified in England would be disqualified here, in France and everywhere else. That is in the interests of horse-racing generally.
I think it is easy for anybody conversant with racecourses to understand the object that Senator Sir Walter Nugent has in mind. He has in mind the fact that at a certain period of the year each bookmaker has to be licensed— the course men and the men who bet in offices. A man may get his licence in the beginning of the year and shortly after may become a defaulter, but he will not be debarred from practising as a bookmaker until the next period of renewal. In the meantime a report may have been made to the stewards of the Turf Club that he is a defaulter. The custom is that a defaulting bookmaker is refused admission to the ring, and the object which Senator Sir Walter Nugent has is that when a bookmaker becomes a defaulter under the rules of racing, he is disqualified from being admitted to the ring, and he is not entitled to bet there at all. It is only fair to say that the respectable men among the bookmakers will approve of this course being adopted.
I have no quarrel at all with the object of Senator Sir Walter Nugent's amendment. My point is that the phraseology is rather loose and is bad to put into an Act of Parliament. We all understand what the rules of racing are, but I do not think that they have had any statutory recognition so far, and we are apparently giving it now. The object of the amendment might be secured equally well by some other words. I cannot suggest them now, but I think we ought to be careful before inserting these words. Perhaps it might be feasible to hold this amendment over until the Report Stage and to have the phraseology decided in the meantime.
If the amendment were passed here, it would have to come before the Dáil. It would be possible in the interval between now and the date when it would come before the Dáil for the draftsman to examine the section, and if a verbal amendment were required it could be made in the Dail.
In place of "five times the amount to be charged," would the Senator accept a fixed charge of £5 for the main ring and £1 for the outside ring?
I think that would be rather unfair. That would be a very definite sum. To fix it at five times the price to the public would be, I think, much more desirable for the bookmakers.
I think the words suggested by Senator Sir Walter Nugent should have been given notice of so that we could see how they would affect the Bill. I am not against them, but I would like to see how they affect other clauses in the Bill. It might come up on the Report Stage. The Minister has stated that he is prepared to accept my amendment as it stands, and on the Report Stage he would consider Senator Sir Walter Nugent's amendment. In the meantime I do not think it would be fair to fix the maximum at £5 for the inner ring and at £1 for the outer ring. There are many decent small men who go to the outer ring, and £1 would mean something to them. I suppose Senators would be surprised to know that the earnings of some of these men might be only £2 or £3 at the end of a day. The charges mean something to them. In view of what the Minister has said, I suggest that we should pass the amendment.
There is nothing in the Bill, so far as I can see, which takes away the privilege of any race committee or of the stewards from exercising the function which I understand they have always exercised—that of warning any person off. I think they would still have that right without embodying it in the Bill. I do not think it would add to the dignity of the legislature simply to adopt the Turf Club regulations.
This would place the executives of the race meetings in a difficult position. As the matter stands at present difficulties would possibly arise.
Besides that, it puts the racing public into an awkward position. If a defaulter gets into the ring and bets there, he will probably bolt before the end of the meeting. If he cheats in one place he will cheat in another, and it would be a protection to the public to prevent defaulting bookmakers from going in and betting.
Cathaoirleach
The executives now have power to exclude any man they like from their premises. This Bill makes this implicit on them to admit certain people to their premises, and Senator Sir Walter Nugent wants to give them power to exclude undesirable persons. If the amendment passes as it is I feel they must admit, willy-nilly, everyone, and that is surrendering their present power of exclusion.
That can be altered on the Report Stage.
Cathaoirleach
But we propose to take the Report Stage to-day. It is rather important that that should be thought over. If the recognised authorities are to forego the power to exclude, then they cannot put men out.
Surely it can be put in on the Report Stage.
Cathaoirleach
But there is a motion down to suspend Standing Orders and take the remaining stages to-day.
I do not think there is any great urgency about that. Several amendments have been suggested, and it is not clear, without having the words, what the implications are. I suggest that we should pass the amendments we intend to adopt as they are and consider further amendments on Report.
Cathaoirleach
I think it would be better to adjourn the Report Stage until to-morrow.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move:—
Section 3. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) Where a licence is granted to a person to operate in a place or places the persons having management of such place or places shall not make a charge to a licensed bookmaker or his assistant in excess of the amount of the charge made to members of the public for admission to the said place or places where the said licensed bookmaker intends to carry on his business while a duty continues to be payable under Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1926."
I do not think it is right to ask bookmakers to pay any increased fees as long as the percentage they are paying at present is being paid, and I ask the House to support that view.
I would like to point out to the House that it is the public and not the bookmakers who pay the tax. The bookmakers merely act as tax collectors for the Government. They do not pay the tax. The public pays.
I wonder if that is a perfectly accurate statement. I am not an authority on racing, and only on very rare occasions have I been on racecourses. As I understand it, there is a 2½ per cent. tax on wagers here, while on the English courses there is no such tax. The licence fee in England is about £2, but here it is about £10. It may be, as Senator Parkinson suggests, that the public pays, but the point is, if the position were the same here as in England, that 2½ per cent. would go into the pockets of the bookmaker, so that the bookmakers lose, and Senator Byrne's point is that while that position remains he should not be asked to pay excessive entrance fees. With this consideration in view, I understand the Betting Committee's Report recommends the removal of the 2½ per cent. wager tax on the course, and the idea, as I understand it, was if and when that recommendation is carried out, that the extra charge for admission would be considered as equitable, but for the moment there is considerable doubt about it.
There is a drafting error in the amendment which I ask the leave of the House to have corrected. The words should be "Section 24 of the Finance Act of 1926" instead of Section 26.
Amendment, as amended, put and declared lost.
I move:—
Section 3. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) If any such excess amount is made payable by the licensed bookmaker under sub-section (6) hereof the proceeds of such excess amounts shall be applied to such purposes and in such proportions as may be provided by the Minister in the regulations in respect to the profits derived by the Revenue Commissioners from the working of the totalisator by them under this Act."
I think this amendment will recommend itself to every member of the House. The object is to do exactly what is promised by the totalisator. What I want to ensure is that any increased charge made for the admission of bookmakers will go towards benefitting horse-breeding and horse-racing. I will be very frank. May I say that the object is to prevent racecourse committees raising the fees beyond the ordinary charges, and to give no encouragement to racecourse executives to raise fees. The intention is that the increased charge should go towards the object that Senator Parkinson and others have mentioned, the encouragement of horse-breeding. The matter may seem to be a small one, but there are four race meetings to which it would mean at least a couple of hundred pounds a meeting each year. I know nothing about the smaller meetings, but I would say that it is worth while getting this money for the fund proposed for the encouragement of horse-breeding and racing.
I would be in favour of Senator Byrne's amendment if the sum to be derived from the bookmaker in excess of the normal charge is pooled in the totalisator pool and subjected to the tax that the Minister would derive from that pool.
I think this amendment would require considerable redrafting if it was to serve its purpose. As a matter of fact I think at present by adopting proper regulations I could get it all for the Exchequer. I do not want to let the amendment pass under a misapprehension. If the amendment is passed I think it will have to be taken that only the principle is passed, and that there will have to be some re-drafting.
How would the amendment work in with Section 5 which says that all fees derived by the Revenue Commissioners shall go into the National Revenue. The money cannot go where the Senator wants it to go?
I was pointing out that as it stands the amendment would not have the effect the Senator desires.
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment provided that the Minister will bring forward one on the Report Stage to meet the point.
What I am prepared to do is to see that someone will consult with the Senator as to the drafting. I do not want to take responsibility for it, because I do not know who would enforce it. I do not want to take responsibility for enforcing it, and for that reason I do not want to have any responsibility for the amendment. I am prepared to arrange that some official will consult with the Senator on the drafting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) The Minister may by order make regulations for controlling and regulating the setting up, maintenance, and working of totalisators under totalisator licences.
(2) The Minister may by order make regulations for regulating and controlling the working of totalisators set up by the Revenue Commissioners under this Act and the use of such totalisators by the public or the members of the public having access to the places in which such totalisators are set up.
(3) Any regulation made under this section may provide that any contravention or breach thereof shall be an offence triable summarily and may prescribe the penalty or the maximum penalty which may be inflicted on persons found guilty on summary conviction of such offence and may also provide that such penalty shall be an excise penalty.
I move:
Section 6, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words:—"Provided that no regulation made under this section prescribing a penalty or a maximum penalty for breach thereof shall come into operation unless and until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and approved by each such House."
This and the next two amendments have the same effect. They are not worded in the same way but they would remove the objection which Senator Johnson, Senator Comyn and I raised on Constitutional grounds to the Minister having power by regulation to create an offence and to prescribe the punishment for it. That is positive legislation, and ought not to be in the hands of a Minister. I do not know if Senators saw the very interesting speech that was made by the English Lord Chancellor a few days ago at the Mansion House in London, in which he stated that there was a growing danger of legislation being delegated to Ministries and Departments. A certain amount of it cannot be avoided in the very complicated state into which the administration of our laws has got, but this is a long way beyond the line which can be drawn between what is positive legislation and is really administration. The Section gives the Minister power to make an offence a thing which is not an offence under the criminal law and then to prescribe the penalty. I think that is going beyond what we ought to do.
I would suggest as an alternative to the amendments on the paper an amendment which I have circulated, with an addition as follows:—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
7. If any person contravenes any of the conditions or restrictions subject to which the Minister has issued a totalisator licence under this Act or contravenes any regulation made by the Minister under this Act he shall be guilty of an offence and shall for each offence on summary conviction thereof be liable to an Excise penalty of five hundred pounds, And then to continue—
(3) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if either such House shall, within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which it has sat after such regulation is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This power of regulation is really proposed to be taken because of the difficulty of foreseeing what may arise from the working of the totalisator. A great many of the points will be covered in the licence, that is, restrictions and conditions will be laid down fairly elaborately, so as to safeguard the revenue, and to see that the totalisator is not operated in some way that was not intended. It may be necessary to have some regulations and it is necessary if there are to be regulations that there should be a penalty. As I said there will be only one licence. It is going to be a big affair and I think the penalty for an infringement of a condition laid down in the licence, or for an infringement of a regulation designed to safeguard the revenue, must be a substantial regulation. I suggest therefore fixing the penalty at £500, and then so far as regulations are concerned they would lie on the Table of each House and could be annulled by either House. I propose that rather than having them passed by both Houses for this reason, that both Houses might be adjourned for three months, that a development might make it necessary to have a regulation or that if the Houses were sitting it might not be possible to submit a regulation to them on account of the Parliamentary programme or disturbed political conditions and get it dealt with promptly. This will only affect one big corporation. It may never be used at all, but it should be inserted as a safeguard in view of the unknown ground we are venturing on in connection with the totalisator.
I had not seen the amendment but, to a large extent, from what the Minister has said it takes away the objection I had. It certainly prevents him prescribing a penalty which the Oireachtas would do if the amendment I suggested were passed.
I have an amendment down to the same effect and I am satisfied, as far as I can understand the amendment without having seen it, that it meets the main objection I have to the section. The reason for desiring that there should be positive approval of any regulations was the fact that penalties were prescribed, and I see, too, the probable difficulty that might arise if the regulations were made during a period of recess. I do not know whether the proposed amendment removes the objection entirely regarding a breach of the regulations being triable summarily. I do not know if the drafting meets that point.
In the main I am satisfied. The Minister gave an assurance that it is intended to grant only one licence, and that in itself seems to me to raise a difficulty. The Oireachtas is asked to legislate in terms which presumes the possibility that there will be innumerable licences issued. We have to act, not according to what the Minister tells us is his intention, but according to what we are prescribing to be done under the law, and we have to act on the assumption that many licences may be issued, and that all kinds of machines called totalisators may be in operation. I do not think the legislature should always pass Bills on the assumption that what the Minister intends will limit the effect of these Bills. I shall be quite prepared to approve of the general intention of the amendment which the Minister read, to carry out the intentions I had in my amendment.
I had an amendment in the same terms on the paper, but in view of the Minister's statement I will be quite satisfied to withdraw it. There is still in my mind one disquieting feature, now that we have come to this stage of the Bill. That is that there is no percentage, apparently, to be fixed as regards what the public is to contribute to the totalisator. There is 2½ per cent. which goes to the Minister. We do not know whether the Turf Club, the Phænix Park Executive, or any other body will say that there should be 3½ in addition to the 2½ the Minister is going to collect. We do not know whether it will be 10 per cent. While Senator Parkinson has made it perfectly clear that no individual as a totalisator owner is going to benefit, still we cannot get away from the fact that, if a certain amount goes to the race funds of the various race committees, and if, as a result, the control board that operates the Phænix Park and other meetings gets a substantial amount of the totalisator fund, and automatically these organisations, which, I believe, are limited liability companies, are changed from losing concerns into profit-making concerns, then obviously the shareholders are going to benefit. I suggest that the Minister should put down his foot as regards what the public should pay, as I take it that the public in the end will pay.
Cathaoirleach
Will the public deal with them if they charge too much?
We are putting this Bill through without any explanation other than the fact that the Minister gets 2½ per cent., but it may cost the public 10 per cent.
It will cost the public 10 per cent., but we cannot be absolutely firm about it until we see how it works. In the first instance the licence will provide that not more than 10 per cent. must be deducted, and that the rest must be paid out, but it may turn out that the cost of working the machine would be 8½ per cent. I do not anticipate that. We do not know, but if it turned out that 10 per cent. was not sufficient to run it, and if it was necessary, and if the public would still bet with the machine when it was 12 per cent., it would have to be done. There can be no firm figure at this stage. It is like giving an estimate about a business that has not been started, and the Senator knows that estimates put forward are often wrong. With regard to anything that may go for racing we will set down in the licence when we have worked it out, restrictions on that, and we will see that it is not going to put money into the pockets of shareholders. If money goes to race executives we will have conditions in the licence to enable us to check the destination of the money which will ultimately go for prizes, or for something other than dividends.
Is there any national responsibility for the purchase and equipment of the machines?
None.
Further consideration of amendment deferred.
Section 6 put and agreed to.
In connection with Section 7, can the Minister tell us what expense it is likely to involve?
The expenses will only be the expenses of supervision.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
Report Stage ordered to be taken on July 11th.
