Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jul 1929

Vol. 12 No. 22

Public Business. - Totalisator Bill, 1929—Report.

I move amendment 1:—

Section 3, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words:—"Provided that no fee for the grant of a totalisator licence shall be charged unless and until it has been approved by resolution of Dáil Eireann."

This amendment which I have put down is really a constitutional amendment. It is based upon the theory and principle that charges upon the public cannot be made by the State without the sanction of the Legislature. The totalisator is to replace the bookmaker to some extent. There has been established here a tax upon bets. The totalisator will alter the machinery whereby that tax can be collected in so far as those bets are made through the totalisator. In the ordinary course of operations, through a bookmaker, the bets would be subject to an Excise duty. The provision in Section 3 is that the Excise duty, or the equivalent of it which is to be levied on the person making the bet, will be collected by means of a fee charged against the licensed holder of the totalisator machine. Therefore, the fee, whether it is a single payment or a series of periodical payments, is a charge upon the public. It is a charge upon the bets that they make, and my concern is that the Legislature should not give the power to a Minister to fix the amount of the tax that is to be levied upon the public by means of the totalisator or by any other means. It is to maintain the principle that the Legislature should have control over the fixation of taxes that I am seeking to have this amendment inserted.

It is not the perfect way of doing it. I quite recognise the proviso I am seeking to insert is not going to do what I wish in the manner I would like, but it is due to the fact that the totalisator is an entirely new machine in this country, and possibly inexperience would not allow a fee to be fixed in the Bill at this stage. Whether that is so or not I am accepting that assumption. Leaving out the Seanad in this case, for the Dáil is the authority for finance—I am conceding that to the Minister—I am asking that the rate of charge that is to be levied to the public through the totalisator should not be fixed without the sanction of the Dáil. That is merely on the grounds of the constitutional principle, and I think it is an important principle and that it ought to be maintained. If there has been a lapse, as undoubtedly there was in the passing of the Betting Act through the Oireachtas in 1926, we, having discovered the fault, should seek to amend it. Therefore, I am pressing this method of securing that the Dáil should have the ultimate control of the amount of fee to be charged to the public through the totalisator.

I second. I do not think it requires much argument in support of it. If there is any constitutional principle that is thoroughly established it is that the House which directly represents the people should have absolute control over finances, down to the last penny, and it is in obedience to that principle I support the amendment.

Senators are elevating something into a constitutional principle which is not a constitutional matter at all. There are many cases in which it is left to the Minister to fix the fee that will be charged. For instance, in the case of the Post Office the fee chargeable for the carriage of letters is fixed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs by warrant. So far as letters are concerned, the fee might be described as a tax, for the letter part of the Post Office service more than pays for itself. This is a case where a privilege has been granted to individuals, and it is proposed to enable the Minister, after negotiation with individuals who will carry on the totalisator, to fix the charge which they will pay for the privilege of doing something that people are ordinarily forbidden to do. I explained yesterday why it was impossible to fix it in the Bill. I do not think it is necessary to have this matter go before the Dáil. As a matter of fact, if this amendment were passed it would, I think, prevent the totalisator being set up in time to be operated when it ought to be operated, because the Dáil will rise to-day. It will, perhaps, meet one day in the course of a week or so, and there will be no possibility of laying before the Dáil the proposals in regard to the fee. There would be no possibility, therefore, of granting the totalisator licence until, say, the beginning of November. That is a practical and immediate argument against the amendment. So far as the amendment is concerned, there is really no constitutional principle involved and there is nothing new or unprecedented in the powers given in the Bill.

As I have spoken so often and so strongly against legislation by the Minister, or by Departments, I would like to say a word as to why this amendment should not be passed. It is in entirely different case from Section 6, where the Minister, under the Bill as it was when it came to the House, had the power, as I said yesterday, to create an offence which was punishable by the district court, and to fix the punishment. That is legislation of a definite kind. This is not. It is more in the nature of administration. The Minister will have to negotiate with the people who are setting up the totalisator. He cannot do that without knowing all the facts. When he knows all the facts he will fix the fee. That is not legislation but administration. I will vote against this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question—"That Sections 3, 4 and 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Government amendment. Section 6, sub-section (3). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—
"(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."
Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

Section 3, sub-section (6). After the word "bookmakers" in line 6 to insert in brackets the words "(provided always that they are not disqualified persons under any recognised Rules of Racing)."

I think every Senator, from the discussion we had last night, more or less understands the object of the insertion of these words. I think any objection taken was because of a misunderstanding of what was intended. I think Senator Byrne suggested that the desire was to keep out the small bookmakers. If Senators read the words carefully they will see there is no such suggestion. The small bookmakers are just as honest and do their business as well as the larger bookmakers. The object is to keep out undesirable bookmakers and no one should be more in favour of that than the reputable bookmakers, because it is necessary to protect the public and to maintain authority of the racing executives. Senator Hooper said it was unusual to refer to the Rules of Racing. It is, but the whole section is unusual. It is the first time it is made compulsory on racecourse executives to admit bookmakers to the racecourses. Having accepted that, we think it desirable that some protection should be extended to them and to the authorities of the Irish Turf Club and the National Hunt Club. It is for that reason I move the insertion of these words and I think they should be adopted.

I second. It is not necessary for me to speak in support of the amendment, the reasons seem so clear why it should be done. If we discuss the question of cricket we must discuss cricket rules, and if we discuss racing the Turf Club rules must be discussed.

I would like to call the attention of Senator Sir Walter Nugent to what I think is a defect in the place it is proposed the amendment should be inserted. I understand the Senator's point to be that unless the amendment is inserted the Bill will oblige the owners of the racecourses to allow licensed bookmakers on their premises because of the insertion of the words "Where licensed bookmakers may carry on their business." I take it that the emphasis on the word "may" seems to give the right to licensed bookmakers to appear on the premises, and that it is to protect the racecourse authorities from the possible intrusion of undesirable persons who may be bookmakers. I call attention to the fact that the same phrase follows in regard to the public—"to which the public may resort." If there is any validity in the point raised with regard to bookmakers, it is equally valid respecting the public. Therefore, I suggest for consideration that this amendment should be inserted after the word "betting." That would cover the public and the bookmaker, and in all probability would give the racecourse executives power to refuse admission to undesirable members of the racing fraternity and the public. I think there is a defect in the drafting, and perhaps that would safeguard the interests of the racecourse owners.

The circumstances are quite different. The licensed bookmaker will go and demand admission and a member of the ordinary public is disqualified. A licensed bookmaker comes with a copy of the Act and says he is entitled to go in even after he was disqualified, while the ordinary member of the public disqualified under racing rules cannot go in under any circumstances. It only applies to bookmakers who are disqualified. The ordinary member of the public who is disqualified cannot get in because the chucker-out would throw him out.

To my mind, the Bill does not interfere in any way with the authority the racecourse executives have already. If the insertion of this amendment is necessary they still retain their power notwithstanding this Bill. The fact that we give this right of admission to bookmakers does not alter the control of private property.

Cathaoirleach

The point seems to be that the particular section put in yesterday makes it compulsory on the management to provide a place at race meetings for every bookmaker. The management shall provide a place where licensed bookmakers may carry on their business.

I agree with Senator Foran that there is no need for the inclusion of this amendment at all, for it is already covered in the rules of the Turf Club, and they are the people controlling racing. They can keep out undesirables. I fear there may be in this amendment some new disqualification. Under this Bill, for instance, non-payment of an exorbitant charge to get into a racecourse to carry on business may constitute a disqualification. You are giving this authority to a body on which there is no representative of the public or the bookmakers. I would like if Senator Sir Walter Nugent would define what is in his mind and the class of person who is to be kept out. If it is a defaulter who refuses to pay his honourable debts to his friends I and every member of this House agree with him, and every decent bookmaker would also. To leave this thing in is going to leave people unfriendly to the totalisator in the hands of a body who will say, "We will charge you so much." If you do not pay that exorbitant charge there may be a new disqualification. I would ask Senator Sir Walter Nugent to be clear as to the class of person to which his amendment applies.

Before a person can be disqualified he has to be reported by his own organisation and he has to be publicly or privately tried. He is given every chance of making a case. A decision is only come to on matters of great importance, such as default and a man not paying admission fee. I do not believe that people have been unfairly treated under the Rules of Racing. If you are to have racing maintained in the horse-breeding industry you must have tests, and the only tests are on the racecourses. If on the racecourse, they should be properly governed. I think that is in the interests of the Turf Club as well as the public. I think the insertion of the words I propose would be as strongly supported by the bookmakers and the general public as by the Turf authorities.

I am puzzled to know what are the recognised Rules of Racing. Have they any statutory value or basis? If they lack it the embodiment of this amendment in the Bill will give them a statutory basis. If so, is it wise to do that? Before this is passed we ought at least to have some approximate idea of what will constitute the disqualification of a person. What test will be applied, and who is going to apply it? Who are the people who framed these recognised Rules of Racing? Are they to be set up as a recognised court of law who may or may not deprive a certain section of the community of their means of livelihood? It would be well to have some more definite information on that point before, in my judgment, this can be accepted as wise, and embodied in an Act. I think it should not be difficult for the Senator to tell us what exactly is meant by a disqualified person.

Cathaoirleach

I cannot allow the Senator to tell you any more on this matter.

I think the position is quite clear. Prior to the introduction of this Bill the stewards of the Turf Club had a right to refuse admission to defaulters or persons who were not fit and proper persons to be trading with the public on their property. The result of the insertion of the amendment will be to make it mandatory on the stewards of the Turf Club to admit bookmakers. I think that the stewards and Senator Sir Walter Nugent are equally entitled to say: "If we are compelled to admit these people we want the power to refuse admission to defaulters." It would not be in the interests of the general public to allow defaulters into the enclosure. It is the general public who would suffer if these people default. I think we ought to accept this amendment without any further discussion.

May I say that defaulters and disqualified persons are not synonymous terms?

I think Senator Sir Walter Nugent's amendment ought to be accepted for the reasons stated so clearly by Senator Farren. We have expressed ourselves in favour of the bookmakers in the course of discussions on this Bill, and we have got for them concessions which go even further than Senator Byrne stated. The power of the owners of a racecourse to exclude any person they like was absolute up to the passing of this Bill. Now we have got for the bookmakers the concession that they cannot be excluded; that is, we have curtailed the ordinary common law right of the owners of the course, and when we do that I think we ought to do it subject to such a limitation as will make it absolutely fair to the public also. I support the amendment for the reasons stated by Senator Farren.

Amendment put and declared carried.

I move:—

Section 3, sub-section (6). To delete the word "a" in line 8 and to substitute therefor the words "any such."

This is consequential.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

Section 3, sub-section (6). To delete all after the word "bookmaker" in line 8 down to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the words:—"for admission to such place or places for the purpose of his business shall not exceed the sum of five pounds sterling for the grand stand and the sum of ten shillings for the smaller stand on any racecourse, and any sums derivable from the charges to such licensed bookmakers shall be paid into the general totalisator fund."

This amendment would make £5 the maximum charge in place of Senator Byrne's amendment, which was five times the amount that could be charged to the public for admission to the race track. If the amendment that Senator Byrne carried yesterday remains it will be altogether against the public interest. There will be no inducement to the proprietors of a race track to lower the admission charges, because by lowering the admission charges, under that amendment, they would also lower the amount that they could charge the bookmakers. The idea of the totalisator is to bring the public back to racing. They cannot be brought back if the high charges remain, and if the public are brought back in large numbers there will be much more business for the bookmakers to do. So that I hold that my amendment is in the real interests of the bookmaker as well as in the real interests of the public.

I second.

Without knowing anything about the relative values of "five times" or "five pounds," I think we ought not be asked to fix the prices of admission to racecourses unless we are going to examine the whole question. I think that is quite undesirable. I doubt very much whether the term "grand stand" is one that ought to appear in any legislation without some definition.

Cathaoirleach

"Not exceeding five pounds." There is some ambiguity in both the original amendment and in this one.

I quite agree.

I agree with Senator Johnson and for this reason, that if there is to be any reduction to the public there ought also to be a reduction to the bookmaker. I do not think it is necessary to occupy the time of the House in endeavouring to amend the amendment which was carried in the name of Senator Byrne last evening.

I also oppose this amendment. Senator Parkinson has been for a considerable time referring to the decline in racing and the falling off in the attendance at meetings. We are all well aware of that fact, and some of us would go the length of saying that to-day the attendance at race meetings is, possibly, not more than fifty per cent. of what it was in the old days. Notwithstanding that, Senator Parkinson suggests that bookmakers here should pay an amount in excess of what bookmakers on the other side are paying, where things are more prosperous than they are with us. On the whole, I think the amendment passed yesterday was fair and equitable. If it erred at all I think it erred in being a little too hard on the bookmakers. But if in England they are satisfied with five times the admission fee for a bookmaker surely that ought to be sufficient for this side of the water at present.

I am not raising an objection to the objective of this amendment, but I do want to emphasise the point raised by Senator Johnson. Is this amendment drafted so that it could be embodied, without further amendment, in the Bill? For instance, "the general totalisator fund" is mentioned. No such fund is mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, it would seem to me that in order to know what that fund was it would certainly require a definition in the Bill, and without that it would seem to me impossible to fit the amendment into the scheme of the Bill. Then again, there is a reference to the grand stand and to the smaller stand. I believe that there are racecourses where there are no stands at all. I think we should not pass legislation which will require an amending Bill immediately afterwards, and I do believe that if this amendment were embodied, before the totalisator had been working very long it would be necessary to introduce an amending Bill to tighten up the loose drafting that, in my opinion, there is in this amendment. I do not know whether there is any way of eliminating what seem to me to be defects, if they are defects, and still retain the amendment in some form. If not, I think it would not be advisable to pass the amendment.

I would ask the House to stand by its decision of yesterday. A recommendation for that is the fact that I am sure it was carefully considered by the Minister for Finance before he accepted it, and why Senator Parkinson should now make an effort to penalise bookmakers I cannot understand. As Senator Moran has said, all horse-breeders and others associated with that industry have been complaining that within the last couple of years there has been a decline of 50 per cent. in the attendance at race meetings. If that is so, I suggest that it would be unfair to fix such an exorbitant charge on bookmakers who will have to carry on their business against the new and probably popular opposition of the totalisator. I cannot understand why such an amendment is proposed. The latter portion of it, which refers to the excess to go into the special fund for the encouragement of horse-breeding and the industry generally, is along the lines of an amendment that I had down yesterday and that is already covered in another amendment of Senator Parkinson's. I would ask the House to reject this amendment and give the bookmakers a fair chance to work against the new competition.

I do not believe that the bookmakers would suffer by having a maximum charge of £5 put upon them. I do not wish to weary the House by going over the ground again as to the possibility of the refusal of the proprietary tracks to reduce the admission charges when they can charge the bookmaker five times the charge. There are racecourses where it costs £2 to get into the reserved enclosure, so that they could charge the bookmaker £10 a day. Then you leave the public out altogether. The public have a poor chance under the Senator's amendment of getting any reduction in the existing charges.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move:—

Section 3, sub-section (6). To delete the word "a" in line 11 and to substitute therefor the words "any such."

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment stood in the name of Senator Parkinson:—
Section 3, sub-section (6). To add at the end of the sub-section the words:—"Provided that any sum paid under this sub-section in excess of the amount charged for admission to a member of the general public shall be paid into the general totalisator fund."

I do not intend to move this amendment.

If the Senator must get the unanimous leave of the House to withdraw his amendment, I object to its being withdrawn. I would have had an amendment similar to this——

Cathaoirleach

It does not need the unanimous leave.

Have I or any other member of the House power to move a similar amendment?

Cathaoirleach

No.

It is not in my power to move another amendment to this effect? I had an amendment based on an amendment that I had in yesterday, and this amendment is only withdrawn now because the other one was defeated.

Cathaoirleach

Permission has been given to withdraw the amendment.

On a point of procedure. I remember distinctly the discussion which took place last night. As between Senator Parkinson and Senator Byrne there was an understanding that both would agree to this proposition, and Senator Parkinson put down the amendment. Senator Byrne wishes to move it now.

Cathaoirleach

But the House does not wish him to do so.

That has been challenged.

I had no agreement whatever with Senator Byrne.

Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 put and agreed to.
Government amendment:—
New section. 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.

This is the amendment that was suggested by the Minister yesterday——

I asked for a Division on the previous amendment and I thought that we were going to have it.

Cathaoirleach

That matter is closed.

This is the amendment that was suggested by the Minister yesterday in substitution for the amendment in the names of Senator Johnson, Senator Comyn and myself in which we asked that any order of the kind that is suggested should receive the assent of both Houses. This is satisfactory as far as I am concerned, because it gets rid of the objection, and I think that the other Senators will be of the same opinion.

This is a very penal fine. To what extent would the authorities be permitted to mitigate it? Surely £500 is a very large sum. What will be the limitation of the authorities in the way of mitigation? You are tying them to a fine of £500 without anything else. Surely there will be some right of mitigation, some elasticity to the Excise authorities to mitigate it?

The Excise authorities can mitigate it to any extent they like. The District Justice can mitigate it to one-fourth of £500 —to any sum down to £125.

The right will be there?

It being an Excise penalty there is no power in the District Justice, as the Minister has said, to reduce it below £125. If the District Justice exercises his jurisdiction to the utmost and makes it £125, is there any power then in the Revenue authorities to reduce it still further? They can compromise before a hearing. Can they compromise after a hearing?

Yes, the Revenue Commissioners can mitigate it, and there is also, beyond that, power actually in the Minister for Finance to mitigate it, although that is a power I have never used and that I do not intend to exercise for various reasons, but there are two further powers.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move that the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the remaining stages of the Totalisator Bill, 1929, to be taken to-day.

I second.

Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Totalisator Bill, 1929, be received for final consideration and do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share