On this section, I was directing attention to the fact that it is an exceedingly difficult section to understand because it refers back to a number of other sections, including Section 25 and Section 37. I was saying there seemed to be a rather complicated system of dual control to be operated, on the one side by the board and, on the other side, by the club. It will be scarcely appreciated what is at issue in this section unless Deputies turn back to Section 25. I am not debating Section 25; I am merely calling attention to its nature. Section 25 is rather confusing and peculiar. It says that the board may by regulations make provision for certain things, and in particular it goes on to state in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2):—
"... prohibiting persons from performing specified functions, or specified classes of functions, on greyhound racetracks save under and in accordance with permits granted by the board at its discretion."
Again, in paragraph (f) of that sub-section its says:—
"...prohibiting persons performing specified classes of functions on greyhound racetracks from having any beneficial interest in the income——"
and so on. That is not so important. The important paragraph is paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) because we turn over to sub-section (5) of this section where we see what the club is empowered to do. The club is empowered to make rules under the section and these are rules which require the provision of persons to perform specified functions on greyhound racetracks and prohibiting greyhound racing except when such persons and specified officers of the club are in attendance.
We have the rather extraordinary position that the board may prohibit persons from performing specified functions or specified classes of functions on greyhound racetracks save under and in accordance with permits granted by the board at its discretion. On the other hand, the club may require:—
"... the provision of persons to perform specified functions on greyhound racetracks and prohibiting greyhound races except when such persons and specified officers of the club are in attendance."
Most people thought, and I was under the impression, that the whole of this business was to be under the undivided control of the greyhound industry board and that in fact there would be a simple division of functions, that the club would be a subsidiary body of the greyhound industry board with subsidiary functions—the subsidiary function of regulating and controlling the sport of greyhound coursing. I now find that, in fact, the club has functions in relation to greyhound racing and this brings me back to Section 50. Let me state again, so far as I can clarify this highly confused situation, that the board would appear to have powers to prohibit certain persons from functioning and certain things from being done. On the other hand, the club would appear to have power to require certain things to be done and certain persons to be appointed. These persons are to be authorised officer. The definition "authorised officer" is not necessarily an officer of the club or an officer of the board. It is merely defined as:—
"A person appointed by the board or club, as may be appropriate, to be an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act."
One could see that in certain circumstances the club might appoint an authorised officer who could interfere with an authorised officer of the board in the performance of his functions. Bearing that in mind and appreciating —I do not want to detain the House unduly—that the same sort of diarchy is given effect to in Section 37 and I think also—I will have to refresh myself—in relation to Section 43, we then come to Section 50 where we find this:
"An offence under this Act, other than an offence specified in sub-section (2) of this section may be prosecuted by the board."
That would appear to rule out all offences under Section 25 and Section 27 which consist of a contravention of a rule under the section. It is very difficult for me to state the point I am trying to make but it does appear to me that, under certain circumstances and having regard to the overlapping powers conferred on the board and the club, respectively, the subsections (1) and (2) of this section might in fact operate to prevent the prosecution, particularly by the board, of certain offences.
It is almost incomprehensible how this thing will work. The one thing that would appear to emerge in the whole business is that we will have two sets of authorised officers doing almost identical things—one corps of officers appointed by the board, who will be charged to enforce prohibitions, and the other body of officers, appointed by the club, who will be empowered to see that specified requirements of the club are being carried out—and then, when these two sets of officers start to function in their respective spheres, there is a zone where their functions overlap and where, apparently, under Section 50, they will come into headlong collision with each other.
It has been necessary for me to enlarge in that way in order to show how really absurd the scheme of this Bill is in many particulars. It is only when one comes to Section 50 that the net point emerges, that the demarcation between the activities of the club and the powers of the club, on the one hand, and the functions and powers of the board, on the other hand, is so vague and indefinite that actually, while they have two separate corps of authorised officers, no one can say at the end who will be able to prosecute whom for an offence.
I think it might be relevant on this section, having elucidated that fact, to refer to an incident which happened some years ago and which is recorded in Volume 96, columns 1876 and 1877. If the House will bear with me, I will read it:
"With two friends, I went down to Connemara, to the Gaeltacht, a couple of days ago. We went to visit an old lady friend of ours whose house stood about 100 yards up from the road."