Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 31 May 1960

Vol. 182 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Greyhound Race Track (Racing) Regulations, 1960: Motion to Annul.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I move:

That the Greyhound Race Track (Racing) Regulations, 1960 (S.I. No. 64 of 1960) be and are hereby annulled.

I want to make it clear to the Minister and to the House that I am moving the motion in this form because it is necessary for me to do so under the particular set-up of the Greyhound Industry Act. In doing this, I do not wish to imply that I consider the regulations are entirely at fault or that I really object to them generally at all. I am moving it in this form to bring myself within the rules of procedure and to enable me to deal with the matter with which I wish to deal. I have read the regulations as a whole, and I am quite satisfied in my own mind, from my limited knowledge of the subject, that in the main they are satisfactory.

I am moving the motion for the purpose of drawing attention to Article 20, subsection (4) which says:—

No owner or trainer may parade his greyhound except with permission or at the request of the stewards of the meeting.

It seems to me that the procedure which has been adopted over the past few years, in the only parallel conditions which I could cite, in regard to owners being allowed to lead their own greyhounds, is an immensely more desirable state of affairs than that they should have regulations imposed upon them whereby they are virtually prohibited from doing so.

The Minister may well answer me and say they can do so if they have the permission of the stewards of the meeting, but that does not really meet the case. I think it is a reasonable case to make that anyone who owns a greyhound may himself lead it in the ring. There are several reasons for that, and the particular reason I see for it is that in dealing with highly-bred and sensitive animals such as greyhounds, who are subject to nervous conditions and in some cases, I might say, hysterical conditions, it is far better for them to be led by someone they know and are accustomed to being handled by every day.

I believe it has been argued as one of the reasons why owners should not lead their own greyhounds in the ring that it would ruin the spectacle—that those leading the greyhounds around the ring would not be dressed in conformity with the general appearance of the meeting. Those who have instructed me, and on whose behalf I am moving this motion, have told me they are prepared to dress in accordance with the wishes of the stewards or those who are in control of the meeting concerned. I am also informed that one of the troubles of greyhound racing is the risk of the dogs fighting with one another. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that if an animal is disturbed or upset in any way—and they are a highly sensitive type of beast—they are liable to fight. One of the bugbears of greyhound owners is that if their dogs get into the habit of fighting, they run the risk of being suspended.

I ask the Minister to consider this matter in the spirit in which I am moving it. I am moving the motion because I consider it is a reasonable request on behalf of the owners. I may say that the general opinion, in so far as I have been able to get it from the owners and those concerned with this type of racing as a whole, is that it is eminently desirable. It may be argued, possibly, that there is some risk of interference with the animals or some risk of doping. Indeed such things have been known to happen before at dog tracks not only in this but in other countries. It may be argued that the officials, whether of the Board or the meeting itself, are more reliable and that there is no risk whatsoever of doping if officials lead the greyhounds around.

I think it is fair if suspicion is directed towards the owners—in other words, if owners are considered unreliable with their own animals and liable to do things such as doping or interfering with them in any way—to ask: is it not also reasonable that the stewards can be got at as well? I do not want to cast any imputation on the honour of anybody concerned with this type of sport, but if the suggestion on the one hand is that the owner may do those things, I may quite reasonably answer: could not the attendant who is leading the dog be motivated by considerations of financial gain or otherwise, to do the same? It does not seem to be a reasonable argument for anyone to put up that you have to prevent the owners from leading their own greyhounds for fear they may dope them. Someone must lead them, and if it is possible for the owner, it is possible for the other person as well.

I have with me one or two details in connection with cross-Channel racing. The White City stadium in London is pretty well-known and one of the regulations or conditions of entry states:

An owner desiring his greyhound to be led round on the parade by his own Kennelman or maid must see that proper uniform is brought, i.e., white coat, black bowler hat or blue beret, otherwise members of the Company's Kennel Staff will lead the greyhound on parade.

I think that is reasonable. It is quite different from the regulations contained in these Articles which I am protesting against this evening. That regulation ipso facto implies, that the owner may lead his greyhound, if he so desires. The only imposition is that he must dress in accordance with the appearance of those around him.

One of the regulations of the Catford stadium states:

Trainers are requested to see that their Kennel Representatives who will lead their Greyhounds in the Parade are suitably attired in a White Coat. Only those so dressed will be permitted to lead Greyhounds in the Parade.

Those are two well-known race tracks in England in which the owners are permitted to lead their dogs. There is no prohibition whatsoever. I ask the Minister to consider permitting the Irish greyhound owner, like his counterpart across the Channel, to lead his own greyhound.

There is no need to stress that this is a valuable industry in which a considerable amount of money is involved. It provides quite a deal of employment. Through sales and through exports, it brings money and profit to our people. The owners feel strongly about this matter. To some Deputies it may seem a small point. It may seem that, under certain conditions, they may be permitted to lead.

I do not know a lot about greyhounds. I have no vested interest in this matter. I have never owned a greyhound. I do not know if I could afford one. Anyone dealing with a greyhound and training it is surely the best person to handle it and see that the animal will behave well, go in for the purpose for which it is there and give of its best in a race.

There is another angle to this subject. If the Minister stands fast on this, as I hope he will not—I hope he will be reasonable—there is the risk of incalculable harm to this type of sport and to this industry in this country. It is possible that people with greyhounds to race may consider the position here unsatisfactory. They may feel uncertain about the future. They may feel anything can happen if they are not permitted to lead their dogs. They may be anxious about their dog running to form. They may say to themselves: "There is no use in continuing to support the Irish greyhound race tracks." There is nothing to stop them from taking their dogs across the water and having them trained there. We must bear these matters in mind and consider every point from every angle. If we antagonise or create a feeling of uncertainty amongst greyhound owners, we may indirectly contribute to unemployment in this industry and that would be a shattering blow.

I move this motion with some regret. The House may well wonder if representations have been made to the Board on this matter. I can assure Deputies that they have been made from my county and from other counties, too.

I also feel the owners had not sufficient time to examine the whole question and to know what it really means, except in some instances. There is a widespread feeling of opposition to the regulation I am opposing. As time goes on, if people bring greyhounds to race meetings and get unsatisfactory results, they will come to realise that this regulation is unsatisfactory. Therefore, I put this motion to the House and ask the Minister to give my suggestion his consideration.

Mr. T. Lynch

I support this motion. In view of the great opposition which there seems to be to these rules and in view of the unhappy manner in which they were introduced, I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter. I addressed a Parliamentary Question to the Minister some time ago with regard to these rules. They were to come into operation on 1st March. My question was put down on 3rd March. I asked the Minister if he would have the date postponed until 1st May. He replied that the answer to the first part of the question was in the negative and that the making of the regulations in question was entirely a matter for Bord na gCon. The reference is the Official Report of 3rd March, 1960, Volume 179, No. 8, Column 1245.

Bord na gCon sent a copy of the regulations to the greyhound owners on 26th or 27th February last. They told them they wanted them to consider the regulations and make any recommendations they cared to make. It was pointed out that the regulations would come into force on 1st March and that it would be a physical impossibility for the Greyhound Owners' Association to call their members together or even to call their executive committee together.

I think that, through the good offices of the Minister, the matter was postponed for some time, but in any case, the whole matter was a bit of a rush. Any recommendations that were made were made in a bit of a hurry. The owners considered that they were not dealt with in a fair manner or even in a competent manner by the Chairman of Bord na gCon.

I shall not go over what Deputy Dr. Esmonde said. I know why the Minister and the Board have inserted the qualification in relation to fighting. They want Irish greyhounds to be above reproach. I know how young dogs will behave at their first trial. Inexperienced stewards or managers or even inexperienced stipendiary stewards might say: "He has had it. He is a fighter." The dog may only have been in a rough and tumble going about the track but his card is kept and stamped immediately that he is a fighter. Even though he might be cleared of that afterwards, the stigma will always be there on his card. That is one of the reasons why these rules are not what they should be.

The new regulations have gone back to pre-1947 days when the draw for places was held in private. It was always a bone of contention at tracks all over the country. Nobody was ever satisfied with it. The greyhound owners and the public always considered that somebody got a preference. I do not see why the draw should not be held in public. It used to take place an hour before racing and people went to see the draw. In these modern times, when we are to have a totalisator at Irish tracks, it is said that that would not do in relation to the numbers of greyhounds. The people who go to horse racing and greyhound racing in Ireland are always prepared to mark their cards and adjust them before the race. That is no load on any sportsman or any lady who goes to the track. They will have their cards and they will mark down the numbers as they are drawn.

I cannot see any objection to having that draw. I cannot see how that would upset the running of the Tote. I would say to the Minister that in view of the fact that there are a very large number of greyhound owners in the Greyhound Owners' Association they are entitled to representation on the Board. It appears that all interests outside of the actual owners are represented on it—the track proprietors, the bookmakers and representatives of the I.C.C. The Minister may say that they would represent the greyhound owners but a great number of greyhound owners will say that they themselves want to have representation and they should have it.

It may be said that it is up to the greyhound owners to start a revolution in the I.C.C., to attend their various coursing meetings all over the country and to cut out the government of the I.C.C., but I do not think that is the idea which the greyhound owners have at all. They recognise the I.C.C. as the governing body of greyhound racing but they say, and I submit rightly, that they represent the owners of the greyhounds; they represent the people who rear the greyhounds; they represent the people for whom the Bill was passed and for whom we struck our breasts and said: "The owners are the people we are considering, the people feeding the greyhounds and rearing the greyhounds." Therefore, if all sides of the House have subscribed to that I submit to the Minister that it is reasonable that the owners should have that representation on the Board.

I should like to see an atmosphere of peace and co-operation between Bord na gCon and all the people concerned in racing. I am sure the Minister would like to see that also because this industry could be improved and it would help what we spoke about on another Estimate, the balance of payments. We could send a large number of greyhounds to various other countries. I would ask the Minister to meet this motion in the spirit in which it was moved by my colleague. Deputy Esmonde, without any rancour and with ordinary reason. I appeal to the Minister in the matter of the fighter, in the matter of parading dogs—with which Deputy Esmonde dealt—and in the matter of giving representation to the owners. Lastly there is a point that I consider is important because it will be the cause of great friction and great suspicion and that is the matter of the draw for places. I appeal to the Minister to consider that matter also.

Mr. Corish

I must confess I never led either a winner or a loser in dog racing or in horse racing. I am sure that there was no malice in the mind of the Minister when he drafted this regulation. It will be noted that the motion deals with a regulation which is more or less all embracing but I think Deputy Esmonde made it clear that he had in mind only one small portion of the regulation when he asked that the regulation be not approved by this House. That was the regulation in connection with the parading of dogs by owners or that part of the regulation which says owners may not parade their dogs except with the permission, or at the request, of the stewards or the track manager—I forget which. Whilst, as I say, I do not believe there was any malice in the mind of the Minister,— and I am sure there was no malice in the minds of the people who advised the Minister—there is the possibility that they did not have full regard for the feelings of the greyhound owners.

I say that because as far as I know there is a strong feeling about this amongst the 300 or 400 greyhound owners in Wexford. One can appreciate their point of view. I suppose the perfect solution might be that there should be six attendants who would parade the dogs but there is a funny sort of relationship, if one could so call it, between the dog and the owner and the owner believes the dog is not absolutely perfect unless he handles him all the time, even up to the time of putting him into the box. The greyhound owner is dissatisfied if he believes the dog has been mishandled or roughly handled—I do not say deliberately—by some attendant. I have often heard complaints made by people at greyhound meetings and they say: "Look at the way he is handling the dog. The poor dog has not got a chance at all." For that reason I believe the owners should be allowed to parade their own dogs if they so desire.

This is not a harangue directed at the Minister for making this regulation. It is an effort on our side to point out to him the attitude of the owners. In the absence of any explanation of this part of the regulation, we are somewhat at a loss. I do not know what the Minister had in mind when he drafted that part of the regulation. I do not know whether he was afraid of doping; I can see a real fear there after the recent experience in horse racing. If this arose from a genuine desire to prevent abuses in dog racing I would not have the slightest objection to it. I think it was Deputy Esmonde who pointed out—and he might know more about doping than I do—that it is not possible to give an effective dope to a dog such a short time before a race. It is usually administered a long time before the parade, half an hour, an hour or perhaps a couple of hours before it.

I do not think it conceivable that a dope administered some minutes before the race could have any effect. The regulation itself is very specific. The first part says that the owners may not parade dogs. I think it would be better if the regulation were drafted the other way and if it were couched in such terms as to allow the owners to parade their dogs except where the steward or manager objected. If there was somebody about whom they had doubts, he should not be allowed to parade his dog in case he might engage in any funny business. But the majority of the general body of dog owners are pretty reputable people. I suppose we have some disreputable people in this as in other sections of the community. I suggest, therefore, that that part of the regulation might be framed to allow greyhound owners to parade their dogs except where the stewards and track manager believed it would be wrong for the greyhound owner to parade the dog.

Mr. Palmer

I came into the House to listen to the debate on Industry and Commerce. Listening to Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde and Deputy Corish speak on this question one would think there were greyhounds nowhere in Ireland except in Wexford and the small neighbouring county of Waterford.

Mr. Corish

We can live only in one county.

Mr. Palmer

I should like to say a few words on this matter because I come from a county where some of the best greyhounds in Ireland have been bred. The Minister attends the show in Ballsbridge every year, as I am sure we all do. We see there the various breeds of livestock paraded by their owners or somebody representing the owners. If you give me time. Sir, I shall lead up to the question under discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are being led up the track.

Mr. Palmer

If the owners of these other animals, such as horses, can lead them around the track why should the owners of greyhounds not also lead their animals around and be proud of them? The only condition seems to be that they must display certain colours, either black with white or black with gold. I cannot understand why greyhound owners are not given the same privilege. This is an important industry and I am sure that under Bord na gCon prospects will be much brighter and that it will be a far more important industry in the future.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I do not know whether I should attempt to follow the line of reasoning of the Deputies who have spoken on this motion. I feel I should not. It was felt that we should have an investigation into this whole question of the greyhound industry. A representative advisory body was set up for the purpose of making a report to the Minister for Agriculture on this subject. I do not know what time it took them to complete their deliberations but they made a report which contained a number of recommendations. One recommendation was that a board such as that now in existence should be set up to control this industry. They also made a recommendation to the effect that revised and more stringent rules should be prepared.

The Board has been set up and it is composed of men who have a fairly good knowledge of greyhound racing, greyhound breeding and everything associated with the industry. I do not think it would be fair of me to interfere or to attempt to interfere with the day-to-day deliberations and decisions of that body.

In accordance with the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, the Board prepared draft regulations. It is not correct to say that these regulations were hurriedly brought into force; in fact as far as I know, these regulations in draft form were circulated to all the interested parties some time in January. Around the 30th March, the decision was made to bring into force the amended regulations, following discussions with all the interested parties. There were prolonged discussions and as a result of these discussions many amendments were suggested and accepted by the Board. As Minister I am prepared to defend here the decision of the Board in their refusal to accept the contentions advanced in regard to the matters mentioned in the course of this discussion.

We are all people who have a knowledge of affairs and we know that, when regulations are being prepared in regard to a matter such as this, it is not possible to secure the complete acceptance of all the interested parties as to what is considered vital if the end that is desired is to be achieved. You will not find agreement with interested parties to that extent. It was the duty of this Board—a duty which as far as I know was fully performed —to discuss and argue these matters but it is not in any way obligatory on a board to succumb to any demand made by interested parties in relation to any matter affected by a regulation of this nature.

I do not want to go into the reasons for this regulation in regard to the parading of dogs nor into the question that was raised by Deputy Lynch in regard to the marking of the card showing the dog's behaviour. Deputy Lynch knows, perhaps better than I do, the reasons for these decisions. As I say, I am quite confident that the men who are responsible for making the ultimate decision were men who knew every aspect of the greyhound industry. I am quite sure also that they were there to devise rules that would secure what the advisory committee thought such a board should aim at securing, in the shortest possible space of time.

Deputy Corish suggests that these were rules made by the Minister. I had nothing whatever to do with the making of these rules. Any more than some of the Deputies who spoke on the subject, I certainly would never claim that I was a knowledgeable man on the subject. I have enough experience to tell me that when a board of this nature is being set up to administer the affairs of a business of this kind, it must be given freedom without interference or meddling on the part of the Minister—even if he had the right to do so—to operate and devise the methods whereby the aim for which they were set up would be achieved.

I do not think there is anything more I want to say. It certainly is not my intention either in regard to the matters raised now or at any time in the future to intervene so long as I am satisfied that the body entrusted with the responsibility of looking after this work is composed of men who are well-intentioned and knowledgeable and who have the same aims and objectives as those set out in the Report. After all, the greyhound industry is quite an important business. Every member of this House and most of the public outside realised that something fairly drastic was necessary in order to try to get the whole business on a surer and better basis. I believe that the Board is trying to do that and so long as I am satisfied that they are engaged in that in an intelligent and reasonable way and so long as they continue to show respect for and to have regard to all the interests concerned, to provide for adequate consultation before vital decisions are made, then they must and will continue to have my support as Minister.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

When this motion was put down, the Minister's Department were informed of the particular Article with which I was concerned. In his reply just now, the Minister simply stated that the Board was created for the purpose of framing regulations and that he was prepared to stand over the decision of the Board. What is a democratic Parliament for? A democratic Parliament is for the purpose of defending certain sections of the community and enabling a Deputy to ask a Minister a question and to request him to answer arguments.

I approached this matter in as friendly a spirit as I could. According to the Greyhound Industry Act, these regulations have to be placed in the Library and cannot become effective until they have been there for 21 parliamentary days. I, as a duly elected Deputy, came into the House and put down this motion. I expected, having made my case clear and dealt with one Article alone, that the Minister would make some attempt to reply to it. I have no objection to the Minister rejecting what I said here, but I do object to a Minister making what I can only describe as a puerile reply.

He made no attempt whatsoever to answer any of the arguments made; he made no attempt to deal with any point I raised. What he came here for was to defend Bord na gCon, to defend the people he appointed. At the outset of his speech, he said that all sections of the community were represented. That, Sir, is not correct. It is at total variance with the facts. We have got several hundred greyhound owners. There is an association in my constituency. They are in Waterford, Kerry, Cork and other counties and right well the Minister knows that, too.

What is the point of a parliamentary democracy where a Government, just because they have a huge majority, treat this House with contempt? What is the point in a Deputy putting down a motion if he will get no answer? What is the point in a Deputy putting down a motion if there is to be no attempt to answer it? Deputies across the way may object to what I am saying. Let them put themselves in the same position. If they were in a minority and if they wanted to put anything down, whether it was right or whether it was acceptable or not to the House, they would at least be entitled to an answer.

I think the Minister has done a bad service to the country this afternoon by his conduct on this motion. I am surprised at him. He says he has no function whatsoever. If he has no function, democracy has no function. He has the right to object to these rules. He has the parliamentary right to accept my motion, if he wishes to do so. I do not expect him to do that but at least I would expect him to take cognisance of what I said. I made a reasonable case here this afternoon. I cannot expect the House to accept it. I do not expect the Government with a majority such as they have to take any notice of what we do but what I do expect is ordinary civility.

I put down this motion and I have a democratic right as an elected Deputy to have my arguments answered or refuted, if necessary. The Minister did not refer from end to end of his speech to the argument. I can only come to the conclusion that the Minister met Bord na gCon this afternoon and they decided they would not agree to this. He said there was plenty of time to discuss it. It was discussed by Bord na gCon. Their attitude was unreasonable. The Minister could have explained and he could have given us some indication as to why owners should not lead their own greyhounds in the ring. I regret to say that I have a poor opinion of the control of the Department of Agriculture and the whole greyhound industry if that is the way it is to be dealt with.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 47.

Tá.

• Carew, John.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Dillon, James M.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• ÓBriain, Donnchadh.
• Ryan, James.
• Smith, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Sir Anthony Esmonde and T. Lynch; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Question declared lost.