Vol. 2 No. 3
I move amendment No 4:
In page 3, to delete lines 27 to 33 and substitute the following:
54A.-(1) An authorised bookmaker who enters into a bet at an authorised racecourse, on an event taking place there or elsewhere, other than by means of telecommunications from outside the racecourse, the subject of levy under section 54, shall pay to the Authority a turnover charge on such bet.".
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 7, to delete "5" and substitute "2.5".
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 9, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Houses of the Oireachtas".
This amendment requires obtaining Dáil and Seanad approval.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, line 19, to delete "55D" and substitute "54D"".
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, to delete line 20 and substitute the following:
"54B.-The Authority may make such flat".
This amendment is intended to correct a drafting error to clarify that the IHA "may" rather than "shall" make such arrangements. We are back to "may" and "shall" again - maybe we should call the next syndicate horse "May and Shall".
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, to delete lines 23 to 27 and substitute the following:
"(a) the activities of an authorised bookmaker,
(b) the activities of a licensed bookmaker at licensed racecourses which are licensed to hold point to point race meetings,
(c) a pitch held by an authorised bookmaker at an authorised racecourse,
(d) a pitch held by a licensed bookmaker at a licensed racecourse which is licensed to hold point to point race meetings,
(e) a betting office,
and different charges may be made in respect of different locations or race meetings having regard to the potential value of the location or meeting for the business of bookmaking.".
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, line 28, to delete "55C" and substitute "54C".
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 4, line 30, to delete "55A or 55B" and substitute "54A or 54B".
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 4, lines 41 and 42, to delete "55A or 55B" and substitute "54A or 54B".
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 4, line 45, to delete "55A or 55B" and substitute "54A or 54B".
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 4, line 46, to delete "55D" and substitute "54D".
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 4, lines 47 and 48, to delete "(including by means of telecommunications)".
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5. line 1, to delete "5" and substitute "2.5".
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, line 5, after "specified" to insert "by regulations".
This is purely a technical, legal point to clarify that the percentages specified under subsection (1) mentioned here are those specified in the regulations.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, line 7, to delete "55A(2) (b)” and substitute “54A(2)(b)”.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 are alternates and amendment No. 27 is consequential on amendment No. 24. All the amendments may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, to delete lines 14 to 30, and substitute the following:
54E.-(1) Each registered proprietor (within the meaning of the Betting Act, 1931) shall, in respect of each registered premises (within the meaning of the Betting Act, 1931) of which he is the registered proprietor, pay to the Revenue Commissioners for and on behalf of the Authority, by the 1st day of September in each year, a charge in relation to the amount (in this section referred to as "turnover") received by him from bets the subject of excise duty imposed by section 24 of the Finance Act, 1926, placed at the premises, during the period of 12 months up to the previous 30th day of June or the last Saturday in the previous June, as decided by the Revenue Commissioners, being-
(a) in the case of a proprietor who has received turnover in that period of less than £50,000, an amount of £500,
(b) in the case of a proprietor who has received turnover in that period of £50,000 or more but less than £100,000, an amount of £1,000, and
(c) in the case of a proprietor who has received turnover in that period of £100,000 or more, an amount of £2,000.
(2) The Minister may by regulations, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, vary-
(a) the charge referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) to an amount of not more than £1,000,
(b) the charge referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to an amount of not more than £2,000, and
(c) the charge referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) to an amount of not more than £5,000.".
In proposing amendments Nos. 24 and 27, I thereby oppose amendment No. 26. As I said earlier, we took into account the contributions on Second Stage when there was a good deal of comment on the proposed new single flat rate charge of £2,000 on all off-course betting shops and the serious adverse effect this would have on small shops in rural towns and villages. My amendment No. 26 accepts the principle advanced by Deputies Penrose, Connaughton, Power and others who spoke, and I am prepared to go further in proposing a three tier system to accommodate all concerns expressed to me on this matter, both inside and outside the House. I am suggesting that those shops with a turnover less than £50,000 would pay only £500; those with a turnover between £50,000 and £100,000 would pay £1,000; and those with a turnover greater than £100,000 would pay £2,000. Deputy Power, who probably knows more about this than any of us, says that most bookmakers would have a turnover of at least £500,000. These are annual charges which may be altered by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to rates not more than £1,000, £2,000 and £5,000 respectively.
I remind Deputies that these annual charges are per shop, so if the likes of Ladbrokes and Powers have a chain of shops the charge would be payable by each shop in the chain, while smaller bookmakers with only one shop will pay only once. Our research showed that the net effect of the change would be to reduce the charge for about 106 shops, out of about 800 betting shops in the country. This helps the small concerns. As Deputy Sheehan knows, in places like Bantry the shops are down a small lane——
The nearest betting shop to me is 21 miles away.
That is why Deputy Sheehan has a lot of money.
Amendment No. 27 is purely a technical consequential drafting amendment.
The Minister has made a strong effort to accommodate the wishes we expressed on Committee Stage. Over 100 bookies have a turnover of less than £50,000 which indicates that our concerns were well founded. They are in rural areas where there are not many people and they are providing a service. Most of them probably have another business. It is important that the same levy should not have been imposed on them. The Minister has examined this carefully. How many bookmakers have a turnover between £50,000 and £100,000? I will withdraw my amendment on the basis of the Minister's amendments.
I thank the Minister for taking note of these circumstances. It is not what some of the smallest bookmakers want but it is much better than the legislation as originally drafted. I will withdraw my amendment on this subject. I am not close enough to the industry to know what the Minister's amendment means to the smallest concerns, but it is better for them than the position a week ago, and I congratulate him on that.
The spirit of this amendment is to give small firms a chance. There is no difficulty for the larger chains. However, if the charge was increased from £200 to £2,000 for people in smaller towns who provide a betting business as an ancillary to other businesses, they might be driven into the black economy and people might just put a bet in a local pub.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 5, lines 33 and 34, to delete "any charges due under subsection (2) are" and substitute "any amount due under subsection (1) is".
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 5. line 35, to delete "55F" and substitute "54F".
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 5, line 38, to delete "55D(1) or 55E" and substitute "54D(1) or 54E".
Amendments Nos. 30 and 45 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 5, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Section 55 of the Act of 1994 is hereby amended-
(a) in subsection (1), after 'levies' to insert 'or charges under this Part' in each place where it occurs, and
(b) in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) after 'levy' to insert 'or a charge under this Part'.".
These are largely technical amendments to section 55 of the Irish Horseracing Authority Act, 1994, and section 33 of the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958. These sections empower the IHA and Bord na gCon to make regulations in respect of the collection of on-course levies. These amendments merely extend that power to cover the new turnover and flat rate charges introduced by this Bill.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 6, line 2, after "£600" to insert "and in particular shall not be more than £60 in the case of a foal of a stallion valued at not more than £5,000".
I have deep reservations about the thoroughbred foal levy introduced by section 5. My perspective is that of people who have only a small number of horses and feel that in paying the levy they would be subsidising people with more profitable horses, stallions which would be worth a six figure sum. In the national hunt sector the cover charge would be between £400 and £1,000. Those people feel the levy would constitute a significant portion of the ultimate price of the foal. The Minister knows every aspect and facet of racing and will be aware that national hunt breeders get £600 or £700 for a foal if they are lucky. This is a significant amount to them and sometimes that market is not as buoyant as we would like it to be.
The Minister will be familiar with a number of breeders in my area who have done a good job with only four mares. They have had spectacular successes. They are a long way from the well-to-do people at the upper end of the flat racing sector who make significant profits. I represent their views. Many of these people would like to contribute. The bloodstock industry has traditionally regulated its own affairs in a voluntary manner. There is no need to impose the levy in a mandatory fashion.
Can the levy be imposed on a tiered basis so that smallholders who breed two or three mares would not be required to pay the levy, which would be disproportionate to the size of their businesses? Not every breeder is a member of the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association. The association has 600 members while there are approximately 6,000 breeders. Under the proposed system, all breeders will be obliged to join a private association. This lack of choice is a cause of concern. The ITBA has indicated that the levy will be imposed on every thoroughbred foal born in Ireland and may be based on the stallion's covering fee. Will the Minister clarify that? If this is to be the case, there must be a tiered system and proportionality between the cost of the covering fee and the levy to be imposed.
I realise that the maximum set out in the legislation is approximately £600. This would be too high for a small breeder. What would happen if a breeder did not wish to join the ITBA? I understand the ITBA sought this levy to replace the existing voluntary levy which is collected at the point of sale. The amount collected by the voluntary levy varies annually to reflect the state of the industry and the ability of breeders to pay. The mandatory levy will be collected at the registration of a foal and will be on a scaled basis. The registration fee for the average national hunt or jump breeder will double from £70 to more than £150. That will be an imposition on national hunt breeders. We should examine other ways to tackle this issue. It would not be fair if the levy did not relate to the cost of the stud fee so that the bigger the stud fee the smaller the percentage of it paid by way of levy. Some breeders will question the capping of the levy at £600 when some stud fees are higher than £100,000. The small breeders for whom I speak charge stud fees no higher than £1.500.
If the levy is necessary, I ask the Minister to consider that it be paid on a voluntary basis. If that is not possible, the payment should be tiered so that small breeders, particularly national hunt breeders, should not be asked to pay in the way set out in the Bill.
Thoroughbred horses born in Ireland are registered by Weatherbys (Ireland). What happens when a foal is born in Northern Ireland? The levy will be imposed in one jurisdiction and not in the other. I am concerned about the practicalities of the new system. I hope the Minister will retain the voluntary nature of the levy or introduce a tiered system so that small breeders do not suffer.
When I was framing my amendment I intended to propose that the first five foals be exempt. There must be a clear demarcation between small breeders and large operators. It is very important that we have a sustainable industry with breeding at the highest possible level and professionals involved. We need the large breeders. At the other end of the scale, I know countless farmers who depend for part of their income on a few mares. These farmers have been the lifeblood of the system for many years and many great names have been bred on farms with only three or four thoroughbred mares.
I have received many letters from people who are extremely concerned about this proposal. They are afraid that they will be obliged to pay a levy which will benefit only the bigger breeders. It is important that we establish a fund for marketing and development because we must match the marketing and development activities of other countries but small breeders believe the imposition of this levy across the board will place them at a great disadvantage.
I wish to quote from a letter which is typical of those I have received:
It is wrong that the large breeders and the horse racing authority should be allowed to bring in this levy and save themselves money by not having to pay a sales levy. A sales levy or a levy on stallion income, which is all tax free, would be much fairer. The small breeders get hit all the time and have no voice. This foal levy cannot take place in Northern Ireland. The horse industry is all-Ireland. There is no border but now there will be one. Breeders in the South will pay a levy but breeders in the North will not. Why change something that works relatively well.
I have received many letters of that type. I do not know if a letter-writing campaign was organised but I received many such letters.
Many small farmers who are breeding foals receive very little payment for them. I know people who stand in the rain at the fair in Ballinasloe for 48 hours and are lucky to make £700 or £1,000 for a foal. A levy of £25, £50 or £100 on a foal which sells for £500 would be very unfair.
It is difficult to achieve balance when putting a system of this sort in place. There should be an exemption for the smallest breeders. We must consider the interests of the 5,000 or more thoroughbred breeders who are not members of the ITBA. We hope that some day all breeders will be members of one body but for the moment the majority do not think it worth their while joining. If a levy is imposed on these breeders they will be very unlikely to join the association because they believe that the money collected by means of the levy will not be spent for their benefit. The perception is that the levy, whatever it is, will not be for their use. Whether that is right or wrong is another story. It has been suggested to me that there should be a levy on stallion fees. I have not given that enough thought and I have not been able to talk to anybody about it to a satisfactory degree. Whether something could be done there is another story.
Deputy Penrose and I are on the same wavelength and I would say that the Minister's views do not greatly differ from ours. If it is administratively possible, I would be in favour of the Minister excluding a number of foals. Subsequently there should be a sliding scale.
The fund which would arise from this should be earmarked specifically. In general, funding is made available for a specific purpose but the goal for which it was intended is lost sight of as the years go by and it is directed towards administration. There should be an absolute target for that money so that all breeders would see that the levy was in their interest, that if they had to pay a levy at least they knew where it was going.
Many people state that the £100 levy will do little for them compared to what it will do for the bigger operators. All we are doing here is echoing the sentiments of many thousands of people. There are flash points in everything to do with agriculture, but this is one of the big ones when a group of people gather together. I cannot express the views more sincerely. I ask the Minister to think about this matter to see if anything can be done on Report Stage. I am willing to withdraw my amendment because I must accept that I did not know what this would cost or its effect. We must be responsible in that regard. Perhaps those figures would be available on Report Stage so that we may see whether it is possible to do this.
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. Deputies Penrose and Connaughton are opposing the section and seeking to put a limit on the levy which could be imposed, especially on the smaller breeders. I appreciate that point. However, it would not be possible to so precisely calculate the value of each stallion. The value of a stallion is the price it reaches at a sale and there is no other way to accurately assess its value. However, I have stipulated that the rates of levy will require the consent of the Minister so as to protect the interests of all breeders and to ensure fair play.
It was the representatives of the breeders, namely, the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association, who first sought the introduction of such a levy so that the income from it could be used to proactively promote the interests of breeders and develop the breeding sector generally. I have specifically stipulated in section 5(8) that the proceeds must be expended on the basis of a programme for the benefit of horse breeders which will only be decided after consultation with those representative of horse breeders.
This is an enabling section. If proposals are made to me under this section, I will examine them carefully having regard to all the concerns expressed by the Deputies and other people. I have received a good deal of correspondence on the matter. In particular I will take into account the position of the smaller breeder before I give consent to a scheme.
Section 5(4) refers to the rate or the scale of rates so there will be a scale. It is envisaged that at the lower end the levy will be £25 or £30 and the maximum levy will be £600. Subsection (8) states that the proceeds of the levy shall be expended on the basis of a programme for the benefit of all horse breeders. The intention here is to enter into consultation with representatives of the breeders, including those who are not members of the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association, because there are as many as 8,000 breeders and there are only about 500 or 600 in the association. The intention is to further develop the industry.
On Second Stage all Deputies recognised the value of the industry - the breeding industry in particular is immensely valuable. About 25,000 people are employed in it. Over the past few years Mr. Matt Mitchell of the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association has been extremely helpful to the breeders and has introduced buyers from Scandinavia, India and Turkey for the lower grade horses. At the Orby Sale at Goffs there are plenty of sheikhs and others to buy the high grade animals. I know from speaking to people in the industry that they greatly appreciate this. We want to continue that because we have the cream of bloodlines in Ireland at present. We are doing extremely well. We are a selling nation.
I had occasion to call to farmers on a Seanad tour and if a farm was nice and tidy, usually it was the dairy farm of a relatively well off farmer. However, if I saw evidence of a little carelessness and a second-hand car in the yard, usually there were two long ears hanging out over a half-door in the yard. I am well aware that the small breeders do not make a fortune. I assure the Deputies that I will take that into account. Such a provision would need the consent of the Minister. Before Report Stage I will have a better breakdown of the industry for the Deputies.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 6, subsection (9), lines 13 and 14, to delete "approved and maintained" and substitute "maintained by a body approved".
This is a purely technical adjustment in the drafting of section 5(9). It is the body which maintains a studbook which is approved under the statutory instrument referred to and not the studbook itself.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 6, before section 9, to insert the following new section:
9.-Section 13 of the Act of 1958 is hereby amended——
(a) y the substitution in subsection (3) for 'consist exclusively of persons who are members of the Board or partly of persons who are members of the Board and partly of persons who are officers of the Board' of 'include or consist of persons who are not members of the Board', and the said subsection, as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section, and
(b) by the insertion after subsection (4) of the following subsections:
'(5) The Board shall decide the terms of reference of any committee of the Board.
(6) The Board may appoint a person to be chairman of a committee of the Board.
(7) A member of a committee of the Board who fails to perform his functions may be removed at any time by the Board.
(8) The Board may at any time dissolve a committee of the Board.
(9) There shall be paid out of the income of the Board to members of a committee of the Board such allowances for expenses incurred by them in the discharge of their functions as the Board may determine, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.'.
TABLE
(3) A committee of the Board shall consist of such number of members as the Board thinks proper and may, at the discretion of the Board, include or consist of persons who are not members of the Board.".
This new section will give Bord na gCon the same general flexibility in relation to the setting up of committees as was given to the IHA in 1994. This section allows the board to have people, that is experts who are not members or officers of the board, appointed to committees. Indeed, we are going one step further by providing that such committees may consist exclusively of people who are not board members.
This new section inserted in the Greyhound Industry Act, 1950, could, if deemed appropriate by the board in conjunction with my Department, be used as an effective way of establishing a panel of independent experts to decide on issues relating to the control of racing.
We have in mind that if there is anything a bit dodgy in the racing industry or if there is doping or otherwise, the best experts in the country, who would be on a committee removed from the board itself, would take the decisions and not draw the Minister or the board into disrepute.
To whom would they be answerable?
They would be answerable to the board and the Minister. When there is a difficulty about a greyhound which wins the laurels or the derby in that something subsequently shows up in the analysis, an expert group of the best chemists and scientists in the country would be appointed by the board to look into this matter.
The Turf Club does that job in the horse racing industry. Members of the committee may have read of a horse trainer who is taking the Turf Club to court at present. It is undesirable for a board to get into such conflict so the board may establish a panel of experts to take control. In any competitive racing, whether it be athletics, cycling in the case of human beings, dogs or horses, control is essential. Given the existence of various new drugs and additives we must be extra careful because the integrity of the sport is most important. It must have integrity otherwise it will fall apart.
I take it that this matter involves outside expertise?
Yes. In the Dáil a number of days ago, Deputy Deenihan, on foot of his expertise in the area of the greyhound industry, appealed to us to include that.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 7, line 43, after "company" where it secondly occurs, to insert "(within the meaning of the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1999, or the laws of another jurisdiction corresponding to those Acts)".
This is a technical legal amendment designed to define the use of the word "company" as being within the meaning of the companies legislation.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 8, subsection (1), to delete lines 6 to 11 and substitute the following:
"32.-(1) (a) A licensed bookmaker who enters into a bet at a greyhound race track, on an event taking place there or elsewhere, other than by means of telecommunications from outside the race track, shall pay to the Board a levy on such bet.".
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 9, to delete lines 12 to 18 and substitute the following:
"32A.-(1) A licensed bookmaker who enters into a bet at a greyhound race track, on an event taking place there or elsewhere, other than by means of telecommunications from outside the race track, the subject of levy under section 32 of the Act, shall pay to the Board a turnover charge on such bet.".
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 9, line 26, to delete "5" and substitute "2.5".
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 9, line 37, to delete "55D" and substitute "54D".
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 10, line 47, to delete "course".
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 10, line 55, to delete "course".
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 11, line 2, to delete "course".
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 11, line 37, to delete "course betting" and substitute "course-betting".
This is a minor drafting amendment to include a hyphen between the words "course" and "betting", effectively making them one word.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 11, lines 38 to 43, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) Section 33 of the Act of 1958 is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsections:
'(1) The Board may make regulations for securing the payment of levy under section 32 of this Act or charges made under section 32A or 32B of this Act and generally for carrying the provisions of this Chapter in relation to such levies and charges into effect and in particular for——
(a) requiring bookmakers who are liable to pay such levy or charges——
(i) to enter, in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time, particulars of all bets entered into at a greyhound race track in the prescribed records,
(ii) to retain the records for the prescribed time,
(iii) to send, on the request of the Board, the records to the Board for its inspection,
(iv) to furnish copies of the records to the Board at such time or times as may be prescribed;
(b) the supply, use and supervision of levy or charge paid betting sheets and the making of refunds in respect of unused or partly used such sheets;
(c) entering into arrangements by the Board with and taking security from bookmakers desiring to pay levy or charges on the basis of returns furnished by them;
(d) the granting to bookmakers by the Board of remissions or refunds (as the case may require) of a levy or charge in cases in which the whole or any part of the contingent liability of a bookmaker in respect of a bet made, laid or otherwise entered into by him at a greyhound race track is shown to the satisfaction of the Board to have been transferred to another bookmaker by means of a fresh bet made, laid or otherwise entered into by the first-mentioned bookmaker with the second-mentioned bookmaker.
(1A) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes any regulation made under this section may have any course-betting permit granted to him suspended or revoked by the Board.'.".
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 13 in my name which was not moved. The intent of the amendment is to delete lines 28 to 37 and it refers to a case where the revocation of a licence and a civil action were combined.
The amendment was not moved so the Deputy will have to resubmit it on Report Stage.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the position. It should be sufficient to either revoke a licence or bring a civil action, not to do both.
I will consider the amendment before Report Stage.
I ask the Minister to delete one or other of the provisions. I accept that a belt and braces approach has been taken, but it is not appropriate in this instance.
I wish to make one further point. For drafting purposes, section 4, page 5, line 7, should be amended because the text refers to "he" when the term "he or she" should be used.
I am informed that under the Interpretation Act, 1937, "he" also means "she".
I accept that.
I much prefer the term "he or she" and when I speak publicly I seek to use it.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 13, line 19, after "beginning" to insert ", not before 10.30 in the morning,".
Section 14 allows the sale of liquor at greyhound tracks from the time they open to the public for race meetings, trials or greyhound sales. This amendment is proposed in order to ensure that the provision is not abused and to prevent bars situated at greyhound tracks from opening before the normal opening hours for bars on the high street. This is similar to the provisions of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act, 1994. The exclusion of the 10.30 a.m. restriction from the original Bill was an oversight. The amendment is not intended to pre-empt anything being considered in the general review of the licensing laws, it is merely intended to ensure that maximum use is made of the new facilities available at tracks throughout the country on racing days and that the important social aspects of these events are not unduly restricted.
I have no problem with section 14, but I received a number of telephone calls about this particular aspect of it. Under subparagraph (ii) of the section it is proposed to amend section 18(2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, to include the term "ending two hours after the conclusion of the meeting, sale or trials, as the case may be,". This represents a two hour extension whereas until now I understand the extension was only for 30 minutes.
There was an extension of 30 minutes at greyhound tracks and one hour at racecourses.
So there will now be a two hour extension at each?
Yes.
Personally, I have no problem with that because I understand what is involved. However, there are those involved in the vintners' industry with premises situated close to these tracks who would have difficulty with the provision because they might lose out on business they would otherwise have attracted from members of the public who travel to race meetings. These people may now find themselves at a slight disadvantage. Specific reference is made in the section to the conclusion of a meeting, sale or trial. Is there any danger that this could be misinterpreted? If, for example, a sub-committee meeting or a similar activity was taking place, could it be taken that that bar could remain open for two extra hours? Is it possible to make specific reference to the activities which should take place?
I am informed that a trial is a specific activity and it is a well established part of the operations of the industry. There is no question of the system being abused. Amendment No. 46 seeks to ensure that bars at tracks cannot open in the morning and remain open all day. Many of the new tracks offer additional facilities, such as Galway, for example, which has a restaurant. If a syndicate wins the last race, by the time its members collect their money they would have little time in 30 minutes for celebrations at the track. The amendment seeks to provide a reasonable amount of time for socialising.
There should be no question that bars at tracks should be opened for any activity outside those specified. There are many well known watering holes in the vicinity of race courses and we do not want to damage their trade.. Our only intention is to provide a reasonable amount of time for socialising after race meetings.
Is it the Minister's view that it is possible to enforce the provision?
Yes.
