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.