Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1955

Vol. 153 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Greyhound Industry Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed).

Generally speaking, I welcome this Bill on the basis on which it has already been welcomed by other Deputies. I think it is of some importance to remember what the Minister said in introducing the Bill, namely, that nothing except the rather markedly bad condition of the greyhound industry at the time the commission was appointed—and it was the commission which was really the origin of this Bill—would justify the Bill. Everyone seems to be agreed that the greyhound industry had got itself into such a state that it was both socially and nationally desirable that there should be some measure of control. That fact must be emphasised in passing a Bill of this description, because its general tenor is one about which the House should be very careful indeed; its tenor is something that must be scrutinised with care because the Bill is putting a monopoly of control—not a monopoly of interest—of one industry or occupation into the hands of a statutory board.

As I understand the general scheme of the Bill, nobody can in future run greyhound racing as an occupation or an industry, unless he brings himself within the control of the control board by obtaining a licence from the board. I think that step is more than justified by the situation in which the industry was when the commission was first set up; and the industry is still awaiting some reform. I think it is no harm for the House to remind itself of the fact that, when it gives this type of control to a small board, fairly weighty reasons are required to bring it to such a step.

Now I have considered the report of the commission. It was against any form of sectional representation. Reading that report and without having any background, apart from the report itself, in relation to the problems, that did not seem to me a very convincing recommendation. I would prefer to see an honestly sectional board representative of all the interests, if that is feasible. It may not be feasible within the confines of a reasonably limited board; if it is not feasible, then I think we should approach the board with considerable suspicion in the sense that if one appoints a board in which one cannot find room to represent all the people, interests or occupations concerned, then one must hedge the board round with a very considerable number of safeguards and one must put a considerable number of limits to its powers.

Perhaps the Minister would reconsider the question of putting the other sectional interests concerned, other than those which will be represented by the standing committee of the Irish Coursing Club, on to the board in some form or another. If it is intended to give them representation, then that intention should be clearly stipulated in the Bill rather than merely appointing. Appointing is too transitory. One man may appoint one person to represent a particular interest; a few years hence, another Minister, with a different viewpoint, may appoint an individual whose interests are not truly representative. I should like the Minister to consider the possibility of giving representation to people who are not already represented under the Bill. That would include the bookmakers, and possibly their employees, as well as racecourse employees. To a certain extent, it might include owners or trainers as well. Between now and the next stage, I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of giving minimal representation to the other interests. If that is not possible on a board of seven, it might be justifiable to increase the number to nine or 11, in order to do that.

The Minister told us in his opening speech that he has a very considerable concern for the interests of the small bookmaker, as they will be affected by this Bill. Now the small bookmaker fears—I do not think this point has been mentioned so far—that under this Bill he will be forced out of business by the larger bookmakers, as a result of the imposition of a levy. That can arise in this way: if a levy, particularly a small levy, is applied to course betting, the small bookmaker fears that a sort of cut-price war will be operated by the larger bookmakers; in other words, the larger bookmaker, with as small a levy as 1½ or 2½ per cent., can afford to take from his backers only the amount of the bet and give back the full amount of the winnings; on a night's racing, he will be able to pay the levy out of his own pocket on his turnover, thereby giving, in fact, a shade of odds to the backer, and that will be sufficient to put the small bookmaker out of business. It has been rather plausibly represented to me that that is quite conceivable and quite possible. I understand that, when the Racing Board are granting course betting licences under the 1945 Act, one of the conditions is that each bookmaker must give an undertaking that he will collect from the punter the levy on each bet. That undertaking does not in a sense affect the Racing Board, but it protects one section of the bookmakers against another section.

I would ask the Minister to consider whether it might not be possible under Section 29 to bring in an amendment providing that one of the conditions applicable to the granting by the board of a course betting licence to a bookmaker will be that he must give an undertaking to the board that in all cases where levies are payable, he will collect the levy from the punter at the time of the making of the bet. In one sense, as I say, that is a protection not against the board or against anything arising from the Bill; it is a protection against a possible danger to the small bookmaker arising from the situation which a levy creates.

I should also like the Minister to consider the question of the maximum and minimum charges for admission to racetracks. This is a matter which has been the subject of very hard bargaining between greyhound racing track managers and promoters and bookmakers, both collectively and individually. I think there is considerable force in the argument that, where the board are getting power to fix a maximum admission charge and where the effect of this Bill will be to provide for the installation of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks, that must take away from bookmakers, as a group, some of their bargaining power with racetrack managers. Up to this, the bookmakers were in a position, as a collective bargaining unit, that they could force racetrack managers because there was the possibility that they would refuse to operate on the track. The manager will now be independent of that. He can, perhaps, run a bad night's racing if he has a totalisator and no bookmaker. If that situation arises under the Act I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of tying down the maximum charges for admission to bookmakers to the maximum charges for the admission of the public. The exact ratio is a matter which could be discussed. It is not a matter on which I have any information which would be sound enough to be of assistance to the Minister.

I accept that the Minister's idea is that the board which he would appoint, and which, presumably, is the first board, would be responsible for fixing these maximum charges to start with. They would set the headline for any subsequent board that might be appointed and would fix reasonable maximum charges which would prevent a racetrack manager from having an unfair advantage over any bookmaker or vice versa. But if, as appears to be the case, the bookmakers as a trade are worried about Section 48 (1) in its present untrammelled form and are concerned particularly because there was this specific ratio contained in the Racing Board Act of 1945 and if they see something sinister in its exclusion from this Act, I think those fears may be groundless. The board appointed by the Minister will and should act with complete fairness in a matter like that. If it is possible to assess now what would be a reasonable ratio between the charges which could be made for the admission of the public and the charges which could be made for the admission of the bookmakers, it would allay the fears of those who are being effected by this Act.

There is only one other matter which I would like to mention, one which was dealt with I think by Deputy Walsh and by Deputy O'Malley. It is the question of the three-year period during which the unreformed Irish Coursing Club must become part of the board of control. It seems to me that the arguments which have been advanced on that ignore one fact. This Bill is giving over to the Irish Coursing Club, with this three-year period of reorganisation immediately before it, the entire control of the breeding and coursing end of the greyhound industry. Nobody has raised his voice against that and I assume from those who have spoken here that they are satisfied that that should be done. It seems to have been a unanimous recommendation of the report.

If that is so, it is obvious that the coursing club must have substantial representation on any control board created under the Bill, and they must have it in three years' time. I think the Deputies opposite are agreed about that. The objection seems to be that they will have it in the intervening period of three years. They cannot all be black sheep and it is absurd to suggest that the individuals who will form a reorganised Irish Coursing Club in three years' time will be completely different and completely unrelated to the individuals who form the standing committee of the existing Irish Coursing Club. If that is right, you should not start off by slapping the existing Irish Coursing Club in the face as hard as you can and then, in three years' time, expect them or the individual members, as reorganised or as leavened with new members, to co-operate with all the other sections of the industry. I think the Minister's view is right. If you want to do something of this kind, it is much more likely to be valuable if it is done slowly, and certainly more likely to be valuable if it does not contain any unnecessary alienation of sections of the greyhound industry and other people who are concerned with it.

I am not in a position to speak from experience or from adequate hearsay to make my remarks reliable in regard to what the Irish Coursing Club did before the report issued by the commission was published, but it certainly does not ascribe to them anything like the malpractices which have been suggested against them. It does suggest that they bit off considerably more than they could chew and that a very large extent of their failure was that they were a group adequate to deal with a small industry and that they suddenly got themselves into the position where they tried to deal with a much larger problem and a much larger industry. If that is so, it seems to be fatuous to insist that the inclusion of four members in a board of seven—the board having wider powers, much better machinery for enforcing them and having proper financing and proper staffing—would result, as one Deputy said, in the industry being ruined before it got on its feet.

As an outsider, I much prefer the Minister's idea that the reorganisation of this club, whatever may be wrong with it, should be gradual and certainly that during the period before it is reorganised the provisions of this Bill should not unnecessarily alienate people who have done service for the industry and who, whether we like it or not, will remain interested in the industry so long as they live and so long as the industry goes on. These people who have been in the Irish Coursing Club, whether efficient or inefficient, whether honest or dishonest, are very likely to stay interested in it as long as they live. There are provisions in the Bill which provide, certainly after three years and probably after two, adequate safeguards against any group or any section seeking control. I think everybody is agreed that at the end of the three years some members of the committee of the Irish Coursing Club should be members of the control board.

In conclusion, I would urge strongly on the Minister to consider sympathetically the two matters I have mentioned, namely, the question of the compulsory collection of the levy as a condition of the granting of a licence and secondly, and even more so, this question of the maximum charges for admission. There is a real fear among a large section of bookmakers that the result of this will be that they will be charged out of business in endeavouring to gain admission to some of the tracks, that some of the tracks will impose a charge for the admission of a bookmaker which will make it possible only for the biggest of those operating to get in. Taking the Minister's views on other subjects, I think he is most likely to be in favour of the maximum possible contribution. If that is to be achieved, then it would be desirable in the Bill to ensure by some method—and the best method seems to be tying it to the admission charges for the public— that the smallest reasonable bookmaker will be able to get in, having regard to the maximum charges which the board will fix.

My contribution will be very brief because most of the things I wish to say have already been said, especially by the last speaker.

With the rest of the House I congratulate the Minister on bringing in the Bill. I welcome the Bill. I have read the explanatory memorandum and a few little grievances occur to me, when one speaks of the bookmakers in the country as a whole. I notice that there is just that danger that they are being given over to an authority that may deprive them of their recognised status. Every bookmaker who attends greyhound courses has a certain pitch and anyone who frequents the course knows where to find a particular bookmaker. There is a danger that the new authority may shift bookmakers to pitches which may not be as popular as the pitches that they have. I would ask the Minister to ensure that no rights will be taken from bookmakers that they already enjoy in respect of pitches.

I notice that there is no representation for the Bookmakers' Organisation on the board. The recognised, selected delegate of the Bookmakers' Organisation ought to get representation on this board. If he saw or thought he saw any injustice being done to his members, he could put forward their grievance, have it remedied there and then and save agitation outside.

Another point arises—the last speaker emphasised it—that an effort may be made to keep some bookmakers out by charging high prices. According to the Bill, if the authorities wish to charge a bookmaker £10 admission charge, they can do so. In the Racing Bill there was a fixed charge for the bookmaker to go in and operate. I think there was a maximum of five times the ordinary admission charge to the public. The Minister ought to safeguard the bookmakers' interests and ensure that there will be no penal or exorbitant charges imposed that would prevent some decent man going in and carrying on his business. Such an exorbitant charge would take his capital from him before the first race started.

I express the hope that the Minister, with the encouragement he has received, will give reasonable consideration to the bookmakers' fair and reasonable demands. They are not making excessive demands. They are merely asking the Minister's protection from penal charges that would keep them out.

Some people may refer to a few of the bookmakers disparagingly. I could never refer disparagingly to a bookmaker. My only knowledge of bookmakers' clubs and of racing is that when I was in another position I had the pleasure of asking the Racing Board to hold a meeting for a charitable purpose. We got the charitable meeting and a handsome subscription as a result and we never came away without a collection from the bookmakers. The smallest and the biggest of them always subscribed handsomely to any charity that they were asked to support. From that point of view, they are a very fine body of men and deserve the consideration and the protection of the Minister.

When the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill, he gave the history of the business for which we are now trying to legislate and, in particular, the causes and grievances which led up to the necessity for legislating in a manner which would try to bring about some confidence, from beginning to end, in the whole industry. The Minister hoped that the House would approach the Bill in a spirit of trying to make it the best Bill we could so that the best results would flow. It is in that spirit that I am approaching this matter.

Many things have been said resulting from deductions or conclusions, the evidence for which, to me, is not quite clear and I would like to ask the Minister a few questions in regard to that before I come to certain definite matters.

Section 3 of the Bill refers to the "Establishment Day" and says that the Minister may by Order appoint a day to be the establishment day for the purpose of this Act. Why should it be "may"? Why should it not be definite, that the Minister shall? If the Bill is passed in its present form, any Minister—I do not mean this particular Minister—has the right to say that he does not propose to do that now because the Act does not demand it from him in a statutory form. All it says is that the Minister "may." Everything, of course, flows from that.

I can reassure the Deputy. There is no significance in this word. It just happens to be the word the draftsman put in.

Will the Minister consider it and amend it to "shall"?

I shall. There may be some Delphic reason for not using "shall" but, if there is, I do not know it.

We all know that "may" means may and is not mandatory.

I think it is taken out of the 1945 Act.

The Minister will reexamine that?

That is good. The next thing I come to is Section 5, which deals with the making of regulations and rules generally. I am not quite clear as to how this arises so early in the Bill because it comes before the final establishment of the board of control that is envisaged in the Bill. I want to come, then, in connection with that, to Section 6—the establishment of the board. I do not know where the three years comes in. The present board will remain in control for a period of three years. Where does the three years come from?

The existing executive of the Irish Coursing Club will, in three annual steps, become the wholly elected body.

When will the first election take place?

Within six months of the Bill coming into operation, I think.

Where is that set out?

I could not tell you but that is the purpose. It is somewhere enshrined.

I cannot find it and I have been trying to find it.

It is in the Schedule, I believe, if you look far enough. It is there.

From the very beginning, apart from what other amendments may be suggested, I want the Minister to ensure that there shall be set up a board at a specified time which will have the absolute and full confidence of everybody concerned.

Deputy Finlay referred to the report of the advisory committee and said that he could see nothing in the advisory committee's report which would warrant some of the allegations or references that had been made earlier in the debate. I would recommend Deputy Finlay, not to get this final report, which is, in a sense, a recommendation, but a verbatim report of the proceedings and the evidence adduced to the board which forced them to come with this recommendation. Then he would find that there were ample grounds for some of the statements made in connection with this matter.

I suggest that the Minister should say that the first of the operations of the new board should be in 12 months from the passing of this Bill and not six months as is intended at present. Within that 12 months' period the Irish Coursing Club should have concluded proper elections for their own board and for its subsidiaries. Then the nominations to the new board of control will come from these properly elected people in a proper democratic way. If the Minister does that he will remove a great deal of the misapprehensions already held by a great number of people. If he does that he will start off on the right foot and will get the co-operation and assistance of all those who are concerned that this new board of control should start off properly from the beginning. If he does not do that, the four nominees to the new board will come from the present board of the Irish Coursing Club.

They cannot nominate anybody.

How do they put them in?

I put them in.

You must put them in from the membership of the board of the Irish Coursing Club and it is suggested that these people are not democratically elected. The Minister should now tell these people to hold their elections in a democratic way. Then he could make his own selection and he would have established confidence in the new board. He would then have gone a good distance to getting rid of the present fear and suspicion and apprehension.

I do not know whether the Minister really appreciates that, if the wrong people get on that board in the beginning, they can do a lot of damage by making bad decisions or by lack of co-operation so that by the time the full board comes to operate they will have nothing but trouble to face in trying to reorganise and re-establish an industry which will have suffered considerably, over and above the depths to which it has fallen at the present moment. I hope that what we are saying here now will induce the Minister to reconsider some of the sections and that he will be prepared to introduce certain amendments to meet the views expressed by various Deputies so as to put the Bill through the House as far as possible as an agreed measure.

I come now to Section 3 and I want to point out to the Minister that here again the draftsman may be to blame. The heading of the section reads: "Levies on bookmakers in respect of course bets." Surely it is a levy on the members of the public who make the bets.

If the Deputy would look at Chapter III of the Act of 1935 he would see that the heading is the same: "Levies on bookmakers in respect of course bets."

Surely you can improve on what we did.

That is what Oireachtas Eireann did.

There have been precedents for the introduction of amending legislation to correct mistakes in earlier legislation. I think the phraseology should be changed and that the section should be entitled: "Levies on course bets." The word "bookmakers" should be left out. You are making it a levy on the bookmaker as against a levy on the contract.

I am not a parliamentary draftsman.

I believe it is the draftsman that is wrong and not the Minister. I would ask the Minister to let the draftsman have another look at it. It is in fact a levy on the bet and not on the bookmakers.

Coming to the question of the levy itself, I think the Minister is making a very serious mistake in accepting the recommendation. I am not accusing the Minister of being the inventor of what is in the Bill and I believe that he is accepting what he regards as the best advice offered to him. A levy of this nature, of 1½ per cent., is going to be almost impossible to operate. If a person gets six to four or even money on a two-shilling bet, which is quite a normal transaction, there will have to be a calculation as to what is 1½ per cent. of two shillings. The bookmaker will have to carry around with him a sack of farthings and halfpennies and pennies so as to be equipped to give change and to provide the levy. At the moment, you have seven races on a track, being run at intervals of 15 minutes. The introduction of this operation is going to upset everything. It will be physically impossible to carry it out both from the point of view of the money required and the levy.

The totalisator is promised and in the report of the advisory committee there are quite long paragraphs dealing with the advantages of the totalisator and the operation of it. Then there are the calculations involved. Certainly I do not know whether the advisory committee were unanimous in their conclusions. They say the turnover in betting in the two tracks in Dublin in one year approached £2,500,000. Out of the blue then they say, without any evidence whatsoever and without any indication of an example, that £500,000 of that turnover would now go to the totalisator. They then start calculations and say that if you were to take 10 per cent. of that £500,000 it would bring so much, that if you were to take 5 per cent. it would bring so much and they come to the conclusion that it would be better to take 1½ per cent. from the bookmakers and a certain amount from the totalisator and then to estimate the income.

The advent of a totalisator in any of these tracks would lend additional attraction from the point of view of racegoers. It would introduce a new form of betting transaction which does not at the moment exist. I do not know whether the Minister has been to a track in England; I have. There they have the type of transaction where you can back a dog for a win or for a second or you can place dogs to be in the first three and you get some return. Sometimes you might back the "dud" dogs and one might win and the other be second and you scoop the pool. The committee says that the two Dublin tracks have a betting turnover of £2,500,000 a year. I say that the advent of the tote would not take very much away from the bookmakers. Some of them will go, of course, but there will be a very extensive addition to the betting transactions so that instead of talking about 10 per cent. of £500,000 you will be talking about a percentage of £1,500,000. I do not know where these figures came from——

Where did the Deputy's figures come from?

I am prepared to stand over my figures.

More than I could about mine.

I am surprised to hear that from Deputy Barry who was a member of this board and probably knows a great deal about how the conclusions were arrived at. First of all, I have ascertained that the number of racing days in the two Dublin tracks is 240 per year. In other words, there is racing on six days of each week when racing is carried out. If £500,000 is to be the turnover in a year of 240 days, it would mean that there would be about £2,000 per day turned over and if you divide that among the seven races each night it will give you something like £285 per race. Surely to goodness, it would be ludicrous to think that you are going to install machinery in the shape of a totalisator which will have 20 forecast sections and 12 win and place machines in these circumstances. That means you are going to have 22 places of betting and if you divide that into £280 the totalisator will never pay.

Obviously, the attraction of the totalisator has been very much underestimated by this advisory committee. With the advent of the totalisator, you will have a much greater number of betting transactions of smaller amounts—2/- and 4/- bets. The bigger transactions will continue to be done through the bookmakers. I say to the Minister it would be far better that he should experiment with the totalisator and come to conclusions from practical results. Then he could decide whether or not he is going to get a sufficient income. I interrupted the Minister when he was introducing the Second Reading and I said I had examined every possible aspect of the provision of revenue to meet the expenses of this board. I asked him to consider a new suggestion and I think he said he would examine it. I am going to make that suggestion now.

There is in Section 48, the very grievous section as I have said, a provision which gives the bookmakers very much cause for worry because there is no limit to the entrance fee they may be charged by the racetrack managements. I think we should all get the Minister to agree that this charge shall not exceed five times the admission charge of the public, whatever that charge may be to the various parts of the course. The suggestion I am making to the Minister is that, instead of a levy from the bookmakers towards the upkeep of this new board, he would add to them a similar charge towards the upkeep of the board; in other words, if the management of the tracks charge the bookmakers five times the entrance fee charged to the public that an equivalent charge should be made on them towards the upkeep of the board. That would mean a very substantial revenue without the least inconvenience to anybody concerned and I do not think the bookmakers will turn their guns on me for having made such a suggestion. I believe they are quite willing to play ball.

Is not that what the bookmakers are suggesting in the brief which the Deputy must have got as well as I did?

It may be in it but I have not seen such a suggestion.

On page two at the bottom.

Such a suggestion was mentioned to me but I do not think it is included in this brief. I do not think the suggestion at the bottom of page 2 is the same as I am suggesting. I think the Deputy is reading something into that which is not in it.

Or that the Deputy is not reading something out of it which is in it.

Has this brief been circulated by the bookmakers? I should have appreciated it if they had sent me a copy just to keep me informed.

I will send it over to the Minister now.

I am sure the bookmakers would send it to me, too.

Anyway, what Deputy James Tully says is not in it.

Deputy Briscoe was on his side too.

I did not hear it said by anybody. Perhaps Deputy James Tully will tell me who said it.

I would rather not.

If the Deputy will look at page 11 of the Explanatory White Paper he will find reference to it.

That is not in the Bill.

If the Deputy looks at the White Paper, bottom of page 10 and top of page 11, he will see a reference to the powers of the board to take that course.

It says:—

"Sub-sections (4) and (7) of Section 48 provide, in effect, for the collection by the board from bookmakers of specific charges for their attendance at meetings in lieu of levies on their course bets. For example, tracks charges for admission of bookmakers at present exceed five times the charge for admission of members of the public and, if the board should consider the limit of five times appropriate to impose, it might suffice for the board itself at any time to collect the excess and waive course-betting levies."

That is not what I am saying.

Well, if it is not, it is awfully like it.

What I am saying is this—first of all the fact that they have to pay in excess of five times the admission charge should not be allowed.

But they are doing it now.

It does not matter what they are doing now. The Irish Coursing Club are doing things now that they should not be doing and that is what this Bill is trying to stop.

Do not put on any false indignation now.

The Deputy made me a promise years ago and made the public a promise that tea would come down to the pre-war price——

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

——and he is just as right now as he was then. What I am saying, as distinct from that is here, is that there should be a levy of five times the public admission charge on them; that the board should get from them the exact equivalent of the amount they pay to go in. I am saying something specific and definite and quite different from what is here. If the Minister would find out the average attendances of bookmakers on these courses he could easily find out how much of a contribution that would make towards the upkeep of the board and if he adds to what would come from the tote, over and above the money needed to cover running costs, staff and so forth, a reasonable charge to racetracks for the use of the tote, or for the fact that the totalisator is put up on their property at no cost to them from the capital point of view and is bound to attract many more people, he will get his money without this horrible business of trouble and bother for everybody every quarter of an hour during a race meeting.

I do not know what the board will charge, what the cost will be. I take it, it will be an automatic totalisator because otherwise races would have to be run every hour. If you were to have someone to sit down to work out the calculation it would mean a race could only be run every hour and that would not help greyhound racing.

I strongly urge the Minister to charge a reasonable fee to the racetracks for having the totalisator on their premises and to deduct a percentage from those who bet on the tote, and together with what this body estimates will flow into the coffers as a result of the broken bits of money which they cannot pay out—the halfpennies and pennies which are left over from their calculations and which they say will produce something like £5,000 a year—there will be sufficient money available, certainly in the first few years of the running of this board to enable them to contemplate what additions they will make in other parts of the country later. They will be able to see whether they should go down to Cork, or to Cork and Limerick, or afterwards to other places. Obviously if the attendance, which I understand now averages between 2,500 and 3,000 per evening at race-meetings in Dublin, goes up by 500 to 1,000— which I believe it will—then everybody will benefit. The racetrack owners will have more people coming in and paying at the turnstiles; they will sell more programmes; the tote will have a better turnover and the bookmakers will have a better turnover—I hope— to enable them to pay the extra charge I am suggesting should be imposed on them and we will get out of this trouble of having to deal with the percentage charge on small bets, thus making them tax collectors at a race-meeting.

Deputy Finlay has rightly said you cannot force a bookmaker to do this work. If I go to a bookmaker who knows me and he says: "Here is your 2/-; I am not going to bother with the halfpenny," he may be able to afford to do that, but the smaller man may not be able to afford it. Consequently, I ask the Minister seriously to consider dropping the levy and doing what I suggest as a contribution to the upkeep of the board.

When we come to the board I agree with Deputy Finlay that you must have sectional representation. The board must consist of people who represent every bit of interest from beginning to end; otherwise, goodness knows what kind of decisions will be made. It is significant that one section —the bookmakers—is completely ignored. It is not left out of the Racing Board. The fault I see with the Racing Board is that they should have two representatives instead of one. I think the bookmakers should have representation on this body. They could send to the Minister a list of names and he could select any one he liked to be the bookmakers' representative. I do not suggest they should have a right to nominate any particular person. I think the Minister should accept the suggestion made by Deputy Finlay and other speakers that the bookmakers should be represented.

Would the Minister admit that if we did not have bookmakers at race meetings or at dog tracks, if we did not have a gamble, we would have no race meetings? The Minister must admit they are an integral and vital part of the whole set-up and represent a very strong section of the community. As Deputy Alderman Byrne said, they are good, patriotic citizens; they are generous and they are very substantial tax collectors for the State and in every way entitled to the same consideration as the representatives of the coursing club.

I want the Minister to realise that we are all agreed, so far as I can make out, to approach this Bill in the spirit in which he introduced it. He wants the Bill to become an Act which will help to solve a great deal of the problems that exist, put this industry back on its feet and try to ensure that it goes on towards more and more prosperity rather than remain in the position in which it has been for the past few years.

I do not know what the extent of the control will be by the stewards, but it will have to be a very exact control. If the grading of dogs was left in the hands of people who were not above suspicion, it would be very easy for certain people to get together, run a race for themselves every night and scoop the pool with the totalisator. Such a proceeding is a little more difficult with the bookmakers because they can say "no" to a bet. With the totalisator, on the other hand, there may be a hot tip for a certain dog and the public may back it very heavily; someone in the know may back an outsider and scoop the pool. From that point of view there will have to be very strict control in the appointing of the stewards whose function it will be to ensure that the running and management of the racetrack will be something quite definite and apart altogether from the grading of dogs so that there will be absolute control over their running.

I come then to the state money and prizes. The time has come when there should be more attractive prizes for those who have been engaged for so many years in the breeding and training of dogs. In the past, the amounts made available have not been attractive to those who have invested time, money and skill in trying to bring up particularly good dogs. There should be some reward for them. These are the people who breed dogs, rear and train them for the glory of running them as distinct from merely trying to make money out of them. But the board will have to make the stakes attractive because, the more attractive the stakes, the greater the prosperity of the industry. Hitherto the attitude in that respect has been a rather lackadaisical one.

I urge the Minister to accept the requests that have been made to him in relation to the attendance fees payable by bookmakers and their employees. There should be a specific maximum provided. The board can arbitrate as to whether or not that maximum should be reduced.

Does not the Act governing the Racing Board provide a maximum?

It does, but this does not. With regard to the levies, until we have got sufficient experience, the bookmakers should be asked to pay the equivalent of whatever their present entrance fee is to the Racing Board. That would obviate the difficulty about the levies. The advisory committee must have had it in mind that where totalisators operate more people are attracted and there is a bigger turnover. As Deputy O'Malley said, the board should have responsibility for ensuring that proper amenities are available for patrons of these racing tracks. A certain amount of the profits should be ploughed back into improvements. As far as I know, the Coursing Club has been making large profits. I understand that body pays very substantial income-tax. As far as I know, racing tracks in Dublin have been very very profitable, and they will become more profitable. Therefore, they should be asked to make their contribution towards this board and its upkeep.

I do not know what attitude the Minister will take. I believe he wants to be reasonable. I ask him to accept our suggestions. First of all, there should be a time limit—say 12 months from the passing of this Bill—during which the Irish Coursing Club will make its selections so that a duly representative democratic board will be in existence from which the Minister can choose his nominees. I agree the Irish Coursing Club should not have a majority representation. It is wrong that they should have four out of seven on the board. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider that. I ask him to consider the other points raised. The Bill is in a sense confusing and perhaps when we come to the Committee Stage, having heard the Minister reply, we will know where we are and what we can do to improve the situation.

In the concept of establishing adequate and effective control of the greyhound racing industry the Minister is possibly advancing in the right direction. I feel, however, that a fundamental essential to the success of this particular venture will be a proper perspective in relation to the people associated with and vital to the industry itself.

This greyhound racing board is conceived in somewhat the same manner as the Racing Board; and that board, despite many doubts, has proved to be of immense value to racing generally. It is because this Bill differs vitally from that parent concept that many people here are urging upon the Minister that he should introduce certain safeguards. Deputy Finlay adverted to that. Deputy Briscoe followed on the same lines.

There are certain safeguards vitally necessary to the greyhound industry. One wonders why, for instance, the draftsman in this Bill has excluded a safeguarding clause with regard to the charge for admission, a safeguard specifically set out in the Racing Board Act. Why has there been a departure? Why has there been no attempt to fix a ceiling on the charge which can be imposed by the proprietors of a racecourse on the bookmaking community? It may sound far-fetched but this might be the very weapon by means of which many hardworking small bookmakers will find themselves excluded from their normal avocation by virtue of the fact that the racecourse management may fix some arbitrary charge of admission which will make it impossible for the small bookmaker to operate successfully. It is a point that I am sure the Minister will consider because there should be nobody more anxious than he would be to safeguard particularly the decent, but maybe not so large, type of bookmaker who operates on many of the tracks not only in the city but throughout the rural areas.

This matter caused a good deal of concern. It is idle for us to talk of success for this particular scheme of the Minister's without drawing the analogy that we see year after year in the Racing Board returns. It is not the earnings of the tote that are the main contributing factor to the success of the Racing Board; it is the levy collected by the unpaid tax collector, the bookmaker, that contributes by far the largest part of the revenue that has led to the success and development of the Racing Board.

It would be well for the Minister to allay as early as possible the agitation in the minds of certain people. I know the Minister can say with his typical devastating eloquence that we are envisaging fears that may not materialise but a simple safeguard, on the comparative lines set out in the Racing Board Act, would give a protection within the statute that would allay all those fears at once. There can be, and there have often been, most unscrupulous things done at dog tracks.

Let us face the other part of the problem. No matter what the Minister may say I think all Deputies will be unanimous in the view that one of the vital factors in greyhound racing must be the bookmakers. They are as vital as the dogs, as vital as the tracks or the track managers. It seems extraordinary that in conceiving a board to control this particular activity the Minister and his advisers have not thought fit to give representation on this board to people who, in the ultimate analysis, will be the largest contributors in £s.d. to the possible and successful working of the board itself.

There are many features of this Bill which commend themselves, I would say, unanimously to the House. I would say that the House is anxious to assist the Minister in getting something worth while and workable for the control and development of this industry. But I do feel that while this is at its experimental stage we should try to focus our minds on the future of this industry and on the experience that has been gained from the past running of the industry. Looking at the industry in any light, we must concede that one of the vital and most effective parts of this general pattern of development of dog racing here is the bookmaker, be he big or small.

The bookmaker will always feel that there is a serious encroachment upon his preserves when you put up a totalisator. There was a great controversy in this House before on this question of a totalisator for dogs. Recognising that advance is necessary, that there are certain types of people who will use the automatic totalisator and who would be more anxious to bet on the tote, particularly small 2/- and 4/- punters, and recognising the necessity for giving them facilities we would point out that the fear is always at the back of the mind of the bookmaking fraternity that the same thing will happen as happened in many racecourses—that the bookmakers will be pushed out of their traditional locations and the totalisators built where the bookmakers may have at one time operated, wherever the track management may think it convenient to put them without any consideration of tradition, time factor or usage at the track. That fear is there but if that fear is added to by a permissive clause within the Bill itself that will enable the track management to fix an arbitrary charge, then I can understand the degree of concern the bookmaking fraternity must feel if this Bill goes through in its present form.

I do not want to labour this point as it has been argued by other Deputies on all sides of the House. I feel it is a matter that can be ironed out in the Committee Stage of the Bill. This is a type of Bill that might well be committed to a special committee where there is a good deal of unanimity and a good deal of anxiety to work out the best possible type of Bill. I think it might be a good idea for the Minister to consider the possibility of sending it to a special committee on the next stage where there would be less controversy and a great deal more expectation about bringing back ultimately a Bill that could be regarded as the best unified efforts of the House to find a solution for this industry.

The Minister should consider earnestly the practicability and the necessity for giving representation to this vital section in the board of control. We all recognise there are very serious difficulties to be overcome in this industry, that there has been considerable abuse of the grading system over the years, considerable "fixing" of races and considerable scope within which the unscrupulous could operate successfully. I feel personally that the Minister is right to try to get a central control that may become effective in dealing with this matter. While we have in the racing world the stewards of the National Hunt, the stewards of the Jockey Club and the Racing Board exercising control, there has been the kind of control by the Irish Coursing Club which very often was a control for the benefit of the few. The Minister must work on the foundations he has. It might be a very good thing if the Minister and his advisers re-examined seriously their suggested board of control. He might also consider the practicability of having some kind of a body who would be in charge of discipline generally in relation to greyhound racing as distinct from an actual board of control of the industry as such. They are two distinct functions and, I am afraid, if the two of them are merged in an administrative controlling body one may not get the best results.

We want to see the best possible Bill come forth. We want to see the best possible effort being made to put this industry on a permanent and progressive basis. We want to ensure that the high standard and quality of our dogs will add to the prestige of the country. We do not want something that may lead to many of the abuses that we have known in the past in relation to transactions with regard to dogs that were exported.

I urge upon the Minister that we should continue to have during the course of the passage of this Bill a reasonable approach so that, in the spirit of helpful co-operation, as distinct from any political issue, we may ultimately emerge through, as I suggest to the Minister, a special committee, with a Bill that will be workable, practicable and will give all the safeguards the Minister and his Department feel are adequate for the various contributing factors to the industry, in particular, the bookmaking fraternity.

The Minister seemed to be surprised that I should occupy a seat in the House during the time that this Bill has been under debate but, if the Minister will refer back to the year 1932—I think he was then a mere neophyte in this House—he will recall that, as Minister for Finance, I set up a committee of inquiry to investigate a proposal to establish totalisators upon greyhound-racing tracks in circumstances which were very similar to those which I fear will obtain under this Bill because, the real gravamen of any criticism which I have to make in relation to this Bill is that it will leave, I think, the old gang in virtual control of the greyhound breeding and racing industry here.

I am sorry that that should be the case because, as we have heard, the greyhound industry is quite a valuable one to us. Not merely is it valuable in its actualities but it is also very valuable in the potentialities which are inherent in it. We should certainly develop it in such a way that our greyhounds would occupy the same position in the dog-racing world as our horses occupy in the horse-racing would and in fact, as it is easier to sell a greyhound than to sell a race-horse and easier to keep one, the value of our greyhound exports might even surpass those of our bloodstock.

Before I go on to criticise some aspects of this Bill, perhaps more drastically or more severely, I want to ask one or two questions. In many parts of this Bill, there are references to "greyhound race track executive." A "greyhound race track executive" has rights under this Bill. So too has what is referred to here as "an affiliated coursing club." I see further down that the board has power to formulate conditions for the grant of a racetrack licence.

What is a greyhound racetrack executive? It seems to me to be a term that requires some definition. It is something which will have the right of representation. It will have the right of representation on the reconstituted, reorganised Irish Coursing Club, but I do not know that there is any thing in this Bill which would guide the courts if a question arose as to what was a greyhound racetrack executive. I will admit that I have not had time to study this Bill with the meticulous care which I think is necessary but, in reading the Bill through, I have not been able to find any definition of a greyhound racetrack executive any more than I have been able to find what is an affiliated coursing club. There is no reference to them in the interpretation section.

We have there "authorised coursing ground" defined, an "authorised coursing-meeting" defined, "authorised officer" defined. "Greyhound racetrack" is even defined, but there is no definition of a greyhound racetrack executive. The failure to define either of these two terms may lead to a great deal of difficulty in future.

In that connection, let us not forget that some years ago the Irish Coursing Club found itself involved in a threat of legal action if, in fact, the legal proceedings had not actually been embarked upon, in respect of some question of definition and of right to be present or to vote at a meeting of the governing body of the Irish Coursing Club.

I have no doubt that, since I have raised the matter, the Minister will look into it and, if he sees the points which I am making are of any force in that regard that he will amend it. It is not a matter on which there can be any controversy. If my impressions are incorrect, then, of course, I shall just have raised the point and I am sure the Minister will reassure me in regard to it.

Under Section 22 of the Bill—here I think, is where this question of the definition of a greyhound racetrack executive may be of some importance—the board "may grant or refuse to grant an application for a licence to operate a greyhound racetrack (in this Act referred to as a greyhound racetrack licence)." It does not say by whom the application is to be made. Will this application for a track licence be issued to a body corporate or to an individual? If, for instance, there is a racetrack owned by a private limited liability company, as I think many of them are, will the licence issue to the limited liability company as a body corporate or to some person or individual to hold it on behalf of the owners of the track?

That is somewhat important because, under Section 23 of the Bill, the board may attach any condition to the licence. There does not appear, so far as I can see, to be any restriction upon the number or nature of the conditions which may be attached by the board to the licence. In sub-section (3) there is a statement that different conditions may be attached to different licences but, outside of these things which are particularly referred to, there does not seem to be any restriction to the limitations which the board may impose or any restriction upon the conditions which the board may exact from the applicant for a licence.

Will these conditions be reasonable or unreasonable? Will there be any conditions as to the ownership of the track; as to the ownership of shares in a limited liability company if a limited liability company should happen to own the track? This is not a mere point raised for the purpose of trying to secure a statement of the conditions upon which the licences may be issued. It has been very freely rumoured, over a great number of years, since the Irish Coursing Club took over control of the racing tracks, that licences were refused to operate tracks, not because there was not an area within which they might profitably operate, but because people were not allowed to participate in the ownership of a track.

There have been statements made in that regard. Very definite statements have been made to me from time to time in regard to the allegedly unfair use of the powers which have been, let us speak quite candidly about it, taken to itself by the Irish Coursing Club, to control greyhound racing. That unfair use of these powers was highly detrimental to the rights of other people who had a desire to invest in providing this particular form of amusement.

I think it is of vital importance, since this Bill is going to hand over the whole power of control to this body, that there should be some safeguard or provision in the Bill which will ensure that these powers are rightfully used; that they are not tyrannically used and that they are not used unjustly or used corruptly. It seems to me that so far as this section of the Bill is concerned there should be same right of appeal. The very nature of the board and its personnel seem to indicate that there is a real need to have some formal appeal from a decision of the board refusing a licence to a particular track. The last word should not lie with them. The Minister might consider whether that power of appeal might not lie to himself. He might possibly be reluctant, as I myself might be in his position, to take that right but failing that, why not allow a right of appeal to the Circuit Court? It would not lead to undue litigation but it would satisfy a great number of people who are very concerned about the manner in which the right to a licence with regard to tracks has been exercised over a number of years.

Again, we are told that ultimately the Irish Coursing Club will consist, in so far as members with voting powers are concerned, of representatives of affiliated coursing clubs. I think that we should have a clear definition of the words "affiliated coursing club" and that we should also have some sort of statement as to what conditions a club must fulfil in order to be affiliated so that arbitrary conditions will not again be imposed which would prevent a bona fide club from being recognised as an affiliated coursing club and therefore having the right to be represented in the Irish Coursing Club.

I think it is very important that these matters should be cleared up because many people feel, with uneasiness, the possibility that those who have control—the old gang, they are called—may become more solidly entrenched than ever in the control of the Irish greyhound industry. These fears have been encouraged by the proposed composition of the board and the predominant position secured under the Bill to the Irish Coursing Club.

Many references have been made in the course of the debate to the position of the licensed bookmakers under the Bill and their apprehensions in regard to it. Most of these apprehensions spring from the reasons to which I have referred. I know that these fears are shared by breeders and owners and they arise from the fact that they fear that the Bill will mean that the old hands will be more solidly in control than ever. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn