Committee Reports > List of Committees > Private > 1928 > Joint Committee on the Betting Act 1926 > Final Report - Betting Act 1926, and the Law relating to the Business of Bookmaking

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 5adh Mí na Nodlag, 1928.

(Wednesday, 5th December, 1928).

The Joint Committee met at 11 a.m.

Mr. T. F. Randall (Revenue Commissioners’ Office) called and examined.

132. The following memorandum of the evidence to be tendered on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners was submitted:

The functions of the Revenue Commissioners in regard to betting are:

(1) to secure payment of bookmakers’ licence duty;

(2) to secure payment of registered bookmaking premises duty;

(3) to secure payment of the duty on bets accepted by bookmakers.

These several duties are duties of Excise which were imposed by Sections 22-24 of the Finance Act, 1926, and placed by Section 42 of that Act under the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners. Broadly speaking, the Betting Act, 1926, contains the machinery which was devised for the licensing of bookmakers and for the registration of premises in which the business of bookmaking could be carried on.

As regards the duty on bets, the Revenue Commissioners were empowered by Section 25 of the Finance Act. 1926, to make regulations for securing the payment of this duty, the collection of which constitutes the most important function of the Revenue Department in regard to betting.

The Commissioners have, however, certain clearly-defined functions under the provisions of the Betting Act, 1926. Their main powers and duties under the latter Act relate to

(1) The issue of bookmakers’ licence:

(2) The keeping of the Register of Bookmaking Offices, and the issue of Certificates of the Registration of such offices:

(3) Powers to appear in opposition to appeals against refusals to grant certificates of Personal Fitness:

(4) The issue of temporary licences and the continuation of the Registration of Premises in cases under appeal to the District Court from the decision of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána.

(5) Prohibition of betting with persons outside Saorstát Eireann.

It is proposed to deal in oral evidence with each of the above main headings, and, if necessary, to review the existing Act Section by Section in so far as the Revenue is concerned therewith.

In addition, it is proposed to offer observations on the following points:—

(a) Conduct of Registered Bookmaking Offices (loitering, paying after result, list betting, etc.):

(b) Proposal to exclude certain classes of persons from Registered Bookmaking Offices:

(c) Proposal to close Registered Bookmaking Offices during certain hours:

(d) Proposal to increase the rates of bookmakers’ licence duty and of registration of premises duty:

(e) Proposal for minimum bet:

(f) Suggestions for the amendment of the existing law:

(g) Statistics.

The statistics referred to are contained in the following Schedule.

SCHEDULE TO MEMORANDUM.

1. Particulars of Bookmakers’ Licences issued and receipts from Licence Duties.

No. of Bookmakers’ Licences actually in force on 30th Nov., 1928:—538.

2. Particulars of Premises Registered in the Register of Bookmaking Offices and receipts from Registration of Premises Duty.

3. Particulars of Temporary Licences granted and of Temporary retention of Premises on the Register of Bookmaking Offices pending decision of Appeals to the District Court from Refusals of Superintendents of the Gárda Síochána to grant Certificates of Personal Fitness or of suitability of Premises.

4. Particulars in regard to Prosecutions for Offences against the Betting Duty Laws and Regulations up to and including the 30th November, 1928.

5. Receipts from the Duty on Bets.

133. Mr. Randall.—Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, perhaps it would be well if I explained at the outset that the Revenue Commissioners are concerned in their official capacity only with the revenue aspect of the betting question. It would be well also, perhaps, to realise that the duties in connection with betting—the licence duty imposed on bookmakers, the registration of premises duty, and the duty on bets at the two and a half per cent. and the five per cent. rates—were imposed, not in the Betting Act of 1926, but in the Finance Act of 1926. Really the Revenue Commissioners are more actively concerned with carrying out the provisions of the Finance Act rather than the provisions of the Betting Act. I do not want to create the impression that we have not got very onerous and responsible duties under the Betting Act; but I would like it to be appreciated that the more important of our functions are in the execution of the tasks committed to us by the Finance Act of 1926.

As I pointed out in the memorandum circulated amongst the members of the Committee, the Betting Act contains the machinery which was devised for the licensing of bookmakers and the registration of offices in which the business of bookmaking could be carried on. The main change introduced by the Betting Act of 1926 was the legalisation of cash betting in registered betting offices. The duties and powers of the Revenue Commissioners under the Betting Act of 1926 fall under clearly-defined headings. These are set out in the memorandum and, with the permission of the Committee, I propose to review the question under those main headings. The first is the issue of bookmakers’ licences. When I speak of bookmakers’ licences I mean the Excise licence issued to bookmakers which enables them to carry on the business of bookmaking. There are really three classes of licences, two of which are issued on payment of duty. One is the annual licence, the second is the occasional licence and the third is a temporary licence which, under the statute, the Revenue Commissioners may issue without payment of duty. That is a licence which is issued whilst a case is on appeal to the District Court. I have that as one of my main headings and I propose to deal with that fairly fully.

It may be well, and perhaps of assistance to the Committee, if I were to give you in concise form the procedure which must be followed before an Excise licence can be obtained by a bookmaker. The procedure for obtaining a bookmaker’s licence is that any person desiring to take out a bookmaker’s licence must advertise his intention to do so in at least two newspapers circulating in the district in which he resides, and must then apply in the prescribed form to the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána for the district in which he resides for a certificate of personal fitness. This application must be approved by two Peace Commissioners for the district in which the applicant resides, and must be dated not less than a fortnight nor more than a month after the date on which the required advertisements are inserted in the Press. Within twenty-one days after the issue of the certificate of personal fitness the prescribed form of application should be completed and forwarded to the collector of Customs and Excise for the area in which the applicant resides, together with the certificate of personal fitness, and a remittance for the amount of the licence duty. A bookmaker’s licence will then be issued to the applicant. The amount of the licence duty is, in respect of an annual licence, £10; in respect of a bookmaker’s occasional licence—a bookmaker may take out a licence for two days or for one day—£2 per day.

I want to stress that the functions of the Commissioners in regard to the issue of Excise licences are mandatory; they are not permissive. The wording of section 5 (2) of the Betting Act, 1926, includes “the Revenue Commissioners shall issue to the applicant a bookmaker’s licence,” so that the position is that any person who obtains a certificate of personal fitness from the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, and who applies to the Revenue Commissioners within the statutory period of twenty-one days, and pays £10 or £2 must obtain an Excise licence. We have no option whatever in the matter.

The next point is the keeping of the Register of Bookmaking Offices and the issue of certificates of the registration of such offices. The procedure for obtaining registration of bookmaking premises is, briefly, that any person, being a licensed bookmaker or the holder of a certificate of personal fitness, desiring to apply for the registration of premises in the Register of Bookmaking Offices, must advertise his intention to do so in at least two newspapers circulating in the district in which the premises are situate, and must then apply in the prescribed form to the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána for the district in which the premises are situate for a certificate of suitability of premises. The application must be approved and signed by two Peace Commissioners for the district in which the premises are situate, and must be dated not less than a fortnight nor more than a month after the date on which the required advertisements are inserted in the Press. Twenty-one days after the issue of the certificate of suitability of premises, the prescribed form of application should be completed and forwarded to the Collector of Customs and Excise for the area in which the premises are situate, together with the certificate of suitability of premises and a remittance for the proper amount of the registration duty. The premises will then be registered in the Register of Bookmaking Offices, and a certificate to that effect issued to the applicant. The amount of the registration fee is £20, and, under the statute, that registration fee carries the bookmaker up to the 31st October in each year. That is, as regards the registration of premises there is a fixed expiry date; but in the case of bookmakers’ licences, there is not a fixed expiry date. The bookmaker’s licence has a currency of twelve months from the date of issue. That is a point on which I will have some recommendation to make to the Committee at a later stage.

You will observe, gentlemen, that the Register of Bookmaking Offices is a statutory Register. It is a Register which is required to be kept in a prescribed form, and the form is prescribed in the statutory regulations which were made by the Minister for Finance under the Betting Act of 1926. The Register is kept in the custody of the Revenue Commissioners, and you will observe in the form of the Register—form number 6, Betting Act, 1926, Revenue form regulations, 1926— the headings. The headings of the Register are given there. When the certificate of suitability of premises is presented and the registration fee is paid, the Revenue Commissioners must enter the particulars of the betting office in the Register of Bookmaking Offices, and they must issue a certificate to the bookmaker that the premises are duly registered. They have also the function of removing the premises from the register either on the lapse of time, if the renewal is not effected after the 31st October, or, in certain circumstances, the Court have the power to order the removal of the premises from the Register. That is where proceedings are taken and a conviction obtained, and, in the opinion of the Court, the offence is of such a gravity that the premises should be removed. On notification from the Court, the Revenue Commissioners remove or cancel the registration of the premises. The registration of premises may also lapse if the proprietor ceases to be a licensed bookmaker.

The next point which I have noted is the power of the Commissioners to appear in opposition to appeals against refusals to grant certificates of personal fitness. You will observe in section 10 (5):—“the following provisions shall apply to every appeal under this section, that is to say:—(a) no party except the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána and the Revenue Comissioners shall be heard in opposition to the appeal.” Practically speaking, the only grounds on which the Revenue Commissioners would oppose an appeal to the granting of a certificate of personal fitness would be where they had authorised the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána to oppose the granting of a certificate of personal fitness under section 4 (a) of the Act. That sets out “that at the time of the application for the certificate arrears of any duty for the time being payable on or in respect of bets are due and owing by the applicant.” That is a provision which we thought wise to introduce into the original Act so that a bookmaker owing duty to the Revenue would be opposed when he came up for a renewal of a certificate of personal fitness.

The next major point which I have noted is the issue of temporary licences and the continuation of the registration of premises in cases under appeal to the District Court from the decisions of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána. The provisions in regard to the issue of temporary licences are set out in section 11 of the Betting Act of 1926. Under that section the Revenue Commissioners have a permissive power to issue temporary licences and to retain premises on the Register of Bookmaking Offices in cases where there is an appeal by the bookmaker from a refusal of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána to the District Court. That refusal may be either a refusal to issue a certificate of personal fitness or the refusal of a certificate of suitability of premises.

There is one point which I would like to bring out very clearly because in other evidence given before the Committee a misapprehension might be likely to be created. In the case of a refusal of a certificate of personal fitness “the Revenue Commissioners may, without payment of any duty but subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose, issue to such applicant a temporary bookmaker’s licence.” That temporary bookmaker’s licence will carry the bookmaker up to a period of seven days after the decision of the District Court on the appeal, but no longer. The Revenue Commissioners may retain on the Register of Bookmaking Offices certain premises which are being opposed by the police, but as soon as the decision of the District Court is given that temporary certificate ceases. The section says:—“the Revenue Commissioners may, without the payment of any duty but subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose, retain such premises on the Register of Bookmaking Offices pending the decision of such appeal.” As soon as the decision of the District Court is given, if it is given against the bookmaker the premises automatically cease to be registered and, on notification of the decision from the District Court, we forthwith remove the premises from the Register of Book-making Offices and call up the certificate issued to the bookmaker. I wish to stress that strongly because in certain evidence there is a reference to a further appeal. “If the bookmaker is not satisfied with the decision of the District Court he may appeal further to the higher Court on a case stated.” That statement, gentlemen, is not quite correct. In section 10 (5) of the Betting Act of 1926 it is made quite clear that there is no appeal from the decision of the District Court. The section says: “no appeal shall lie to the Circuit Court under section 84 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924).” What has happened is this: when the decision of the District Court was given a bookmaker applied for a case stated on a point of law, but that did not affect the continuation of the registration of the premises. As soon as an adverse decision of the District Court is given, whether there is a case stated or not, the premises fall to be removed from the Register of Bookmaking Offices. There were two cases stated, one for the State and one against the State, but pending a legal decision on those there were a number of cases in which the District Court granted an adjournment without giving any final decision. As in the case of the issue of bookmakers’ licences, the Revenue Commissioners have no option but to register premises in the Register of Bookmaking Offices on production of the certificate of suitability from the Gárda Síochána Superintendent and on payment of the statutory registration fee of £20.

The next point which I have noted is the prohibition of betting with persons outside Saorstát Eireann. The prohibition of betting with persons outside Saorstát Eireann is contained in Section 21 of the Betting Act, 1926. I will explain to the Committee exactly what action has been taken under that section. Shortly after the passing of the Betting Act, 1926, the Revenue Commissioners caused an advertisement to be inserted in the public Press calling attention to the prohibition—of what I might refer to as export betting—contained in that section. In addition, we arranged with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for a scrutiny of telegrams which might be suspected to relate to betting transactions. We had copies of these telegrams supplied to us, and we had extensive enquiries made by our officers. We followed up a considerable number of cases, and we found that, broadly speaking, they fell into two classes. The first class related to persons who acted genuinely in ignorance of the prohibition. We issued a warning to these people against future offences, and got an undertaking from them that they would not commit any further offences. We must say that the subsequent scrutiny of betting telegrams showed that the undertakings were honoured. The second class of persons who sent betting telegrams to commission agents in England were in the nature of birds of passage—commercial travellers who were over here for a few days and who sent commissions to their regular bookmakers on the other side. We satisfied ourselves that the leakage of revenue from this source was inappreciable. There is one thing I should like to have placed on record in this connection, and that is, that in carrying out the duties entrusted to the Commissioners under that section, we received the fullest measure of co-operation and assistance from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We do not desire any amendment in that section. We consider that the powers contained therein are sufficient for our purposes at any time we care to invoke them.

The next point is the conduct of registered book-making offices—loitering, paying after results, list betting, etc. The inspection of registered betting offices by revenue officers is confined exclusively to purposes connected with revenue—that is principally to the examination of the bookmakers’ accounts, so as to ensure that a proper return of all bets accepted is made for revenue purposes. The Revenue Department as such has no control whatever in connection with the question of loitering—that is purely and simply a police matter. The Revenue is, to a certain extent, concerned in the practices which have cropped up in registered book-making offices of paying after the result, and of list betting—that is betting to odds made by the bookmaker from a board, just as on racecourses. We find that, with a few exceptions, the bookmakers who carry on this type of business are mainly the smaller men. There is no doubt that a certain loss of revenue would result if these practices were stopped, but we do not consider that the loss of revenue would be appreciable, because we hold the view that if these practices were stopped a very high percentage of the money would still find its way into genuine S.P. business. Therefore, from the revenue point of view we have no very strong objection if these practices were declared illegal, but I think that nothing short of legislation will stop the practices. There is another aspect of the question to which, I think, the Committee should give attention, and that is that the suggested remedy of paying out on the next day may not wholly solve the problem, though it will go a long way. There may be the danger that instead of paying out in actual cash on the day of the result bookmakers will devise a system of allowing credit on winning wagers. For instance, a man may have 2/6 on a winner at four to one, and have 12/6, less tax, coming to him. It may be declared illegal for the bookmaker to pay out that 12/6 after the declaration of the result, but he may devise a scheme whereby the punter may be allowed to have a credit bet off the 12/6 coming to him.

As to the proposal to exclude certain classes of persons from registered bookmaking offices, the persons proposed to be excluded, so far as I can gather, are: (1) persons under the age of 18, (2) women with children in arms, (3) persons in receipt of poor relief or unemployment benefit. There is no objection from the Revenue point of view to these proposals. It is, of course, assumed that if the Committee adopt or recommend these proposals, the task of giving effect to the proposals will fall upon the police—the Revenue Department could not undertake it.

134. Deputy Cooper.—You do not think that that will lead to any appreciable loss of revenue?—I do not think so. We adverted to that, and we are satisfied that the amount of money at the disposal of these persons for betting is not very considerable, and we offer no great objection from the revenue point of view. The proposal to close registered bookmaking offices during certain hours is, from our point of view, a major question. I may state at the outset that that proposal would be wholly unacceptable from the revenue point of view. We consider that the effect on the revenue yield would be considerable. We are not in a position to say exactly to what extent it would affect revenue; but we are satisfied that that proposal would have a very serious reaction on the revenue yield from the duty on bets. We think that that proposal would not stop betting during those hours, but that it would drive it into undesirable and uncontrollable channels. We hold the view that that proposal would resurrect street betting in its worst form—that we would be back again in the days when bets were accepted in publichouses, billiard saloons, laneways, alleys, halldoors, and in other places. We do not think that to close registered offices between 1 and 5 would have the effect of stopping betting, but that it would have the effect of driving it into channels which the revenue could not control.

There is one point not wholly unconnected with that proposal which I thought it wise to mention without making any definite recommendation, or really without holding any very strong views on the point, and that is that, as you are aware, there is a movement for late racing in England as a sort of counterblast to greyhound racing. The present hours during which registered offices may be allowed to remain open are from 9 to 6. It may be well for the Committee to bear in mind the fact that when late racing in England starts, the first race may be at 3.30 and the last race at 6.30 or later in the summer months. It may be well to bear in mind that aspect of the question when dealing with the hours during which business may be permitted in registered betting offices. As a matter of fact, I think in one recent instance we had late racing in Ireland.

135. Chairman.—In the Phoenix Park? —Yes, on the occasion of the Horse Show. The next point which I have noted is a proposal to increase the rates of bookmakers’ licence duty and of registration of premises duty. The proposal put forward was for a licence duty of £50 and a registration duty of £100. These points were very carefully considered before the Betting Act of 1926 was passed, and the view then held was that the rates of duties to be imposed should not be such as would put out of business the small man whose record from the police and revenue point of view was satisfactory. I am afraid that the figures suggested would have the effect of putting out of business a considerable number of men. The proposal might conceivably find favour with the larger bookmakers, but it would inevitably tend towards the creation of a monopoly in the bookmaking business. To that, I think it was made quite clear in the statements in the Dáil. there was considerable opposition. Despite the fact that we might get more revenue, the Revenue Department is not in favour of the proposal. If any increase in duties is contemplated, the increase which we would suggest would be a licence duty of £20 and a registration duty of £30. We quite appreciate the reason behind this proposal. There is no doubt a number of persons who should not be bookmakers at all, but I think that the remedy for that situation lies rather along police lines than revenue lines. The remedy, to my mind, lies in a stricter control over the issue of certificates of personal fitness. As I pointed out, the Revenue Commissioners have no power to refuse to issue an excise licence to a person who obtains a certificate of personal fitness from the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána. We are all in favour of the proposal that such conditions precedent should be attached to the issue of a certificate of personal fitness that the general standard of the type of person to be licensed as a bookmaker will be raised.

The next point is the proposal for a minimum bet, and the figure suggested is 2/-. From the revenue point of view, we are opposed to any proposal for a minimum bet. There may be a certain simplification of the revenue work in checking bookmakers’ accounts if the sixpenny bets and bets of that description were prohibited, but I am afraid that the insistence on a proposal for the acceptance of a minimum bet of 2/- in any registered betting office would not stop betting in smaller amounts. The people would still continue to bet in sixpences and shillings, and these bets would be accepted in such circumstances that the revenue would not get its yield of duty thereon. I have had certain figures taken out as to the effect of such a proposal on the revenue. I am not in a position to give you the actual amounts of bets, because to take out figures dealing with the average amount of bets, and so on, would be a colossal task; but I have the certified figures taken out of the number of bets of 2/-and under. The whole of the Saorstát is divided for revenue purposes into five collections—Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway. When I speak of the Dublin collection, I mean the Customs and Excise collection in Dublin. I find that in the area covered by the Dublin collection, in the case of bookmakers’ betting on certified returns in registered betting offices, with the exception of about twenty bookmakers the average number of bets accepted under 2/- is about fifty per cent. of the total number of bets received. In the Waterford collection, of the total number of bets received, about 20 per cent. is under 2/-; in the Cork collection, about 25 per cent.; in Galway collection about 20 per cent.; in Limerick, about 25 per cent. As regards betting on racecourses of bookmakers operating on certified returns, about 5 per cent. of the total bets is under 2/-. In the case of bookmakers who record bets on official tax-paid betting sheets, in Dublin 60 per cent. of all bets is under 2/-. I want again to make it clear that these figures relate to numbers of bets and not value. In the City of Cork, 40 per cent. of all bets is under 2/-, and, for country bookmakers, 40 per cent. of all bets is under 2/-. So that from the point of view of the numbers of bets alone, you will see that the proposal to insist on the minimum bet of 2/- would have a considerable reaction on the revenue. Then we feel, as I pointed out, that the proposal would not stop all betting in smaller amounts. We think that a person, for instance, having 2/- to bet, would wager it on one contingency instead of two or four contingencies. If it was his practice to have four sixpenny bets, I think he would pick out what he considers the greatest “certainty” of the four and plunge the 2/- on the one horse. We also think that persons who now bet in sixpences or shillings might be tempted to bet with two shillings. We think that, so far as there is a social evil inherent in a sixpenny bet and betting amongst the poorer classes, the remedy would appear to lie in the proposal which has already been made, viz., the exclusion of youths and of women with babies in arms and the general raising of the standard of persons who are proposed to be licensed, because, with the general improvement in the type of persons you licence as bookmakers, I think the acceptance of sixpenny bets would disappear. The point remains that we feel bound to oppose the proposal for a minimum bet on revenue grounds.

The next point is in regard to suggestions for the amendment of the existing law. Certain recommendations have been made by General O’Duffy, and I propose to deal with certain aspects of that evidence, in so far as revenue is concerned, at a later stage. The points which I have noted in connection with the amendment of the existing law are four. The first is that we consider there should be an excise penalty for carrying on the business of bookmaking in unregistered premises. The position at present is, if a person accepts bets in unregistered premises, he is really carrying on a gaming house. The Revenue authorities have no control over him as such. We are thrown on the Gaming Acts of 1853-54, which are police enactments. If a person were to take out a bookmaker’s licence and to accept bets in unregistered premises, we have no power to touch him unless we can prove that the bets accepted did not find their way for duty purposes—a very difficult task if he is carrying on in premises which are not under revenue control. We further consider that the penalty attached to carrying on a gaming house or to carrying on the business of a bookmaker in unregistered premises is inadequate. The police penalty on the first occasion I think is not exceeding £20. At any rate, it is not commensurate with the £500 penalty which the legislature has provided in the Finance Act and in the Betting Act in respect of excise offences. As a comparison we may take this case: A man may stand up at the Curragh or any racecourse in Ireland without holding an excise licence—a bookmaker’s licence—and he is liable on conviction to an excise penalty of £500. On the other hand, a man may carry on business in an unregistered premises and he is liable only to a penalty not exceeding £20. We consider also that the Revenue Authorities should have power of control over these people, as well as the police.

The next point is a point which has been put forward by General O’Duffy in his evidence—that the photo of the bookmaker should appear on the licence. That proposal was considered in the early days, and we decided that, for the time being at any rate, we would not insist upon the provision. We consider now, however, that it is a good proposal and that it should be adopted. There are certain of our officers to whom practically every bookmaker in the Saorstát is known, but there are other officers in the country districts who could not be expected, and who, in fact, do not know every bookmaker, and there is a danger of a traffic in licences. Particularly in the off-racing season, there is a danger that a bookmaker who does not require his licence may lend it to somebody else who would go down the country and bet at a coursing meeting, a small flapper meeting, or even at a race meeting. The local officer may challenge him to produce his licence and he may produce a licence, say, in the name of John Murphy. The officer could not be expected to know whether he was in fact the John Murphy named in the licence. We, therefore, consider, in order to facilitate our officers in the detection of unlicensed bookmakers, that condition should be insisted upon—whether it should be incorporated as a definite statutory provision in the new Betting Act is a matter for the Committee. It could be done in this way: Power could be given to the Revenue Commissioners to attach such conditions as they thought fit to the issue of the excise licence. Then the Commissioners could make it a condition precedent to the issue of the licence that the photo should be attached. That is a domestic question.

The next point is the proposal for a fixed expiry date for bookmakers’ annual licences. The position at the moment, as provided in Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1926, is that a licence is expressed to be in force for one year—that is the licence dates from the date of issue and has a currency of twelve months. For the purpose of control, we consider that all licences should have a fixed expiry date and that that date should be the same date as the fixed expiry date for registration of premises.

136. Chairman.—The 31st October?— Yes, the 31st October. The fixed expiry date for registration of premises is provided for under Section 9 (2) of the Betting Act.

Unless and until removed from the register under or by virtue of this Act, any premises registered in the register of bookmaking offices shall continue to be so registered until midnight on the 31st day of October next after the registration thereof and shall then (unless the registration has been renewed under this Act) be removed from the said register.

It would simplify matters considerably if we had a fixed expiry date for bookmakers’ annual licences. We would suggest also that, as in the case of the registration of premises, the full licence duty for the year should be charged, irrespective of the date during the year that the bookmaker’s licence was taken out. That is, if a bookmaker took out a licence, say, on 1st July, that licence would automatically expire on the 31st October, and he would be still charged the full annual duty of £10, or whatever sum it may be. Our reason for that is that, if you have in a Statute a provision for a proportionate charge in respect of licence duties, you will have bookmakers slipping in and out of business, a position which would render it very difficult for us to control them.

The fourth point which I have noticed in connection with the suggested amendment of the law is the prevention of the licensing of what I may term “dummy bookmakers.” We have a number of bookmakers who are being put out of action either as a result of action on the part of the police, or on the part of the Revenue Commissioners—people against whom we have taken proceedings and obtained convictions. They do not apply themselves for a renewal of their licence, but they will put up either a wife, or son, or somebody who may not be a relative at all. These people against whom we have taken proceedings may be regarded as “unhealthy” from the Revenue point of view. Although they may be unable to obtain a certificate of personal fitness themselves, we do not desire that they should slip in through the back door by nominating somebody who is really only a “shadow” bookmaker. That is a matter which it is difficult to control. There is one aspect of the question that I should like to draw attention to. Certain bookmakers of repute have genuine, bona-fide agents whom they duly licence, and who accept bets on their behalf. We have no desire to touch that class of person. We only desire to have some control over those people who have been prosecuted and convicted. It is not a problem easy of solution; but I would suggest to the Committee for consideration that they include, under Section 4 of the Betting Act, which deals with the grounds on which a certificate of personal fitness may be refused, a provision that the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána should be given a permissive power to refuse a certificate of personal fitness on the ground that he is not satisfied that the applicant is the real owner of the business. I would provide a right of appeal to the District Court, but I would insist that the onus of proof should lie upon the applicant. It should be sufficient for the Superintendent to report that he is not satisfied that the applicant is the real owner of the business, and the onus of proof should lie upon the applicant. That, of course, would only apply to the cases of men who have been prosecuted or opposed by the police or Revenue authorities.

Chairman.

137. Would you include in that amendment defaulting bookmakers?—Do you mean those who fail to pay in respect of bets?

138. Yes—those who refuse to pay their debts?—I think there is a ground of objection in the Act which is not exactly watertight, objection on the ground of the known habits of the applicant.

139. Would you include those people in your recommendation?—This is a proposal to get at people who have been put out of business either by the police or by the Revenue authorities, and who may creep into business again by putting up somebody as a “shadow” bookmaker, they themselves being the owners of the business.

140. The police or the Revenue authorities do not deal with those men under the Act?—We would have no objection from the Revenue point of view to the exclusion of those men.

141. The Act does not exclude them?— No, not specifically. I have brought certain statistics with me in case the Committee should desire to have them. I have particulars of bookmakers’ licences issued and the receipts from licence duty in respect of the years 1926-27, 1927-28, and 1928-29 up to 30th November. The figures relate to the year ending 31st October in each case. I have also particulars of premises registered in the register of bookmaking offices and receipts from Registration of Premises Duty. I have particulars of the number of temporary licences granted, and of the temporary retention of premises on the Register of Bookmaking Offices, pending decisions of appeals to the District Court. I have particulars in regard to prosecutions for offences against the Betting Duty Laws and Regulations, and I have brought with me a statement of the receipts from duty on bets, month by month, from November, 1926, to October, 1928, at the two rates of duty, 2½ per cent. and 5 per cent. (Statistics handed in).*

142. Senator MacLoughlin.—Would you not consider the 30th November a better date for the expiry of the licence than the 31st October?—We have no very strong views one way or another. The registration of premises expires, under the existing law, on 31st October. If the date were altered to 30th November, it would mean certain adjustments for the first year, but there would be no insuperable difficulty in that.

143. You are aware that the flat-racing season ends in November, and is in full blast in October?—Yes.

144. Chairman.—Will these statistics show us the proportion of betting on races outside Ireland?—No, but I can tell you that. I have had inquiry made as regards the percentage of betting in registered betting offices which relates to transactions or relates to events outside Saorstát Eireann. As a conservative estimate, you can take it that the volume of betting in registered betting offices in the Saorstát which relates to cross-Channel events is in excess of 95 per cent. of the total. That is a conservative figure. As a matter of fact, there is very little wagering done in respect of Irish racing in registered betting offices.

145. Deputy Cooper.—Can you suggest any reason for that?—I think the main reason is that the type of person who frequents registered betting offices is very little interested in Irish racing.

Chairman.—And there are ten races run in England for one run in Ireland.

146. Senator Bennett.—Did I understand you to say that after the District Court had decided against an appeal the Revenue Commissioners still keep the betting premises on for seven days?—No. The betting premises are automatically removed from the register on the decision of the appeal. The section sets out that the Commissioners may retain such premises on the Register pending the decision of such appeal, but the seven days is in respect of the bookmaker’s licence. The Commissioners have power to issue a temporary bookmaker’s licence “for such period not extending beyond the expiration of seven days after the decision of such appeal as they may think fit.”

Chairman.

147. You stated that in the case of these smaller offices, some men have taken out a number of licences—some of them have about 60 offices licensed in Ireland? —I know the case you have in mind. There is no limit to the number of registered betting offices a bookmaker may open. But he must be a licensed bookmaker himself. If he has taken out his licence as a bookmaker, he can open as many registered betting offices as he likes if he gets a certificate of suitability from the Gárda in respect of each office, and if he pays £20 in respect of each office.

148. Does the £20 represent registration or licence fees?—Registration. The bookmaker’s licence costs £10 and registration of premises £20.

149. For every house he owns?—Yes.

150. Senator MacLoughlin.—He does not require to take out a licence for the assistants in the offices?—No. There is a saving in the Betting Act for persons employed as assistants. Section 20 says:

A person shall not be deemed for the purpose of this Act to act or carry on business as a bookmaker merely by reason of his being employed by a licensed bookmaker to act as his clerk or assistant, provided such person only acts as such clerk or assistant either in registered premises, of which such licensed bookmaker is the registered proprietor, or in the personal presence of such licensed bookmaker, and the amount of such person’s remuneration is not wholly or partly dependent on or calculated by reference to the amount of business done or profits made by such licensed bookmaker.

The provision as to profits is to make sure that he is not really a silent partner in the business.

151. Chairman.—Can you suggest anything that would prevent a man having 50 or 60 licences and looking for a good site in every town or village in order to tempt those people whom you describe. 40 per cent., 50 per cent., or 60 per cent. of the bets being for 2/-? The type of man we are dealing with is that small man who opens a shop in every village with a view to putting inducements in the way of the working classes to make 1/-or 2/- bets?—The proposal to limit the number of registered betting offices is not one which the Revenue Commissioners would favour. The remedy for that, I think, lies along police lines—some proposal that the number of registered betting offices are regarded as excessive in a particular year. On the other hand, you are killing competition. You are creating a monopoly, and I think that point was adverted to when the original Act was under discussion in the Dáil and in the Seanad.

152. Senator Bennett.—Surely, you are lessening the monopoly, by limiting the number of bookmakers’ premises that a man may have? The more premises you allow a man to have the greater the monopoly?—There is that aspect of the question. Your proposal is that a particular man should be limited as regards the number of offices he opens?

153. There would be a better chance for the Revenue, because you would get £10 in respect of each office?—The effect on the revenue would be the other way.

154. You would get £20 for each office and you would get £10 in addition in respect of each office for the bookmaker, which would be more than you are getting at present?—On the other hand, you would be limiting the number of registered betting offices.

Deputy Cooper.

155. You suggest, in order to prevent the licensing of “dummy” bookmakers, that there should be added to Section 4 a ground of objection—that the Superintendent is not satisfied that the applicant is the real owner of the premises?—Yes.

156. That would knock out the people you refer to as genuine agents?—I would make the power a permissive one, and the Superintendent of the Gárda could only exercise it in the case of people who have been either prosecuted by the police or prosecuted at the instance of the Revenue authorities and who seek to get back into business.

157. You would not think of adding to that section: “and has good grounds for believing he is acting as an agent disqualified under (a), (b), (c) or (d)?— That would be an admirable suggestion.

158. You referred to the imposition of conditions on the licence? Can that be done by Departmental regulation?—It would be necessary to provide a Section in the Act that the Revenue Commissioners or the Minister for Finance—the Revenue Commissioners would really be the proper body—may attach such conditions as they think fit to the issue of the licence.

159. You are against a minimum bet? —Yes.

The danger is that people might club together?—They do so at the moment, and I think that people who now subscribe to make up sixpence or a shilling would be tempted, if a minimum were fixed, to find the money to bet to the extent, say, of 2/-.

160. You called our attention to the fact that if we were to abolish payment immediately after the race, the bookmaker might give the man credit for the amount he won?—Yes.

161. If General O’Duffy’s suggestion as to hours were acted upon, there would not be the same danger?—That is so, but the proposal to close registered betting offices is so unacceptable from the Revenue point of view that I am afraid we must demur.

162. You decline to contemplate it?— Yes. Our objection to that is uncompromising.

163. There was one point in General O’Duffy’s evidence that you did not touch upon?—I propose, with the consent of the Committee, to offer some observations on points raised by General O’Duffy. I will take them up seriatim and deal with them.

164. Is it, in your opinion, possible to stop betting altogether by legislation?— I do not think so.

165. The principal fear of the Revenue Commissioners is the revival of uncontrolled street betting?—Yes.

166. You are a member of the Departmental Committee on Irish Racing?—Yes.

167. One of the recommendations of that Committee was the establishing of a Totalisator under a responsible body?— Yes.

168. Would the question of the control of betting be met by allowing the authoriites working the Totalisator to establish agencies of their own in the various towns of the Saorstát?—That proposal has been mentioned, but it has never reached the stage of serious consideration. I would prefer, if the Committee desire to have a considered opinion on that aspect of the question, that they would give us some little time to consider it. The proposal has been mooted, but it has not reached the stage of serious consideration.

169. Did you not consider it worthy of serious consideration?—Yes.

170. If you could get away from the competition of the individual bookmakers and have one system worked by responsible people, it might have certain advantages—and possibly disadvantages?— Yes. Your proposal is that there should be licensed agents?

171. Yes?—Would that mean the setting up at, say, the branch offices of the Totalisator to deal with wagering on cross-Channel events?

172. That, of course, would present considerable difficulty? The whole question bristles with difficulties because you would have to consider whether the Totalisator would be set up as a State enterprise.

173. Deputy Cooper.—If you would give the matter more consideration, we might have the pleasure of hearing you again upon it.

174. Deputy Doyle.—Have you any idea of the number of unregistered offices or have you any statistics showing the number of people who were knocked out of business and who re-started under assumed names?—We have very good information that bets are being accepted by certain people in unregistered premises. I would ask the Committee not to press me any further on that point.

Senator Foran.

175. Have you any record of the number of defaulting bookmakers?—No. We are really not concerned with the relations which exist between a bookmaker and his client.

176. You realise that since the State licensed bookmaking that people have gone in a good deal more for betting. The volume of betting has increased?— I should not like to agree wholly as to that, because prior to the introduction of the Betting Act we had no means whatever of arriving at the volume of the betting. Betting was carried on in subterranean channels, and the effect of the Betting Act was to bring overground what had formerly been conducted underground.

177. Do you believe that the public— punters generally—should have some protection since the State allows people to bet and to meet that would you agree that a bookmaker before getting a licence should be requested to deposit a certain amount—say £500—as evidence of his financial stability?—A proposal of that kind would limit the number of bookmakers not alone considerably, but very considerably. It would exclude from business a very large percentage of bookmakers and would simply leave the number of bookmakers who would be in the position of monopolists. I do not think that position obtains in any other branch of business. Take a publican. A publican has an Excise licence but the State does not guarantee the quality of the goods he sells.

178. The man going into the publican has something presented to him for his money. In the case of a bookmaker, a man hands in his money believing, because the bookmaker is registered, he is in a position to meet his liabilities?—I would not share that view. I do not think you could take the view that because a man is required by statute to take out an Excise licence to carry on business that that is in any way a guarantee of his stability. The remedy really lies in the granting of certificates of personal fitness—having regard in that to persons who, by reason of financial considerations, are unfit persons to be registered as bookmakers.

Deputy Cooper.

179. Arising out of Senator Foran’s question, could you give us any opinion as to the percentage of bookmakers whose relations with the Revenue Commissioners are unsatisfactory?—On the whole, a very high percentage of bookmakers are satisfactory from the Revenue point of view.

180. That is mainly from the point of view of collecting the tax on betting?— Yes.

181. It has been said that in England there has been widespread evasion of this tax by bookmakers and betters agreeing not to make any written entry? Do you think that exists here?—To a certain extent. We have had a number of prosecutions. We have had bookmakers who, from the Revenue point of view, were eminently satisfactory. We have had bookmakers who were satisfactory in the beginning but for whom the strain of protracted honesty proved too much. Then we have a residuum whom we would like to see out of business altogether.

182. On the whole, you do not think there is widespread evasion?—I do not think so. We have had a number of prosecutions. Proceedings have been taken in open court in the case of frauds upon the Revenue—bets that have not been entered or bets systematically suppressed, or bets systematically reduced in amount.

183. Senator Bennett.—With regard to the issue of certificates of personal fitness, you would not be averse to one of the reasons being reasonable financial stability of the person to be licensed?— No. we have no objection whatever to any proposal which will have as its ultimate object the raising of the standard of the persons licensed as bookmakers.

Senator Foran.

184. Recently I read in the newspapers where you prosecuted a number of bookmakers who were fined £500 or more. I know that many of these men never had that much money in their lives. Do they go to jail for a period?—As that question has been raised, I may say that I have handed in statistics showing that 41 cases have been actually taken into Court. There are a fair number of cases still pending. Penalties aggregating £27,000 have been imposed. These penalties are, under the Excise law, collectable by levy or by commital warrant. The Revenue Commissioners have powers of mitigation of Excise penalties. They may reduce the penalty to any amount. The Court may reduce only to the statutory one-fourth. The Revenue Commissioners and the Minister for Finance, under Section 35 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, possess powers of mitigation. We do not take proceedings, in Revenue cases, for the collection of monetary penalties. We take legal proceedings, as a general principle, as a deterrent. When the penalty is imposed by the Court, we can proceed to collect it by levy warrant. If there are not sufficient goods to satisfy the levy, the Justice must, on application being made to him, issue a body warrant and the offender can then be lodged in jail for an indefinite period.

185. Chairman.—Has that £27,000 that you mentioned been actually collected?— No. Part of it has been collected. Warrants are in course of execution for a considerable number of the big penalties which are comprised in that sum.

186. Deputy Doyle.—Have you any suggestion as to improving the present system of registering bets from the point of view of avoiding evasion?—That is a question upon which I would prefer not to be pressed. The checks which the Revenue authorities have devised and are constantly devising for the due and proper collection of the betting tax are confidential in nature. I do not think it would be in the best interests of the Revenue if I were to be pressed too far on that question. You may rest content that the Revenue authorities have many and varied means at their disposal for ensuring a satisfactory collection of the duty on bets.

Senator Foran.

187. The Commissioner of the Gárda and you seem to be in conflict regarding certain clauses in the Act of 1926?—I was not aware that we were in conflict. I should be glad to be referred to any particular section on which we are in conflict.

188. You questioned General O’Duffy’s evidence?—No. I said I would be pleased if the Committee would afford me an opportunity to offer observations on General O’Duffy’s evidence in so far as the Revenue Department is concerned therewith. I have touched on the recommendations put forward and it will not be necessary for me to go through this Act section by section. I have already touched on the question of the temporary licences, because it appeared to me that the impression might be left that the temporary licence issue by the Revenue Commissioners carried a bookmaker over between the period when his appeal was decided by the District Court and the case stated came before the High Court. That is not so. The temporary licence automatically expires seven days after the decision of the District Court on appeal and the registration of the premises automatically expires on the day of the decision. General O’Duffy stated that there were no prosecutions under the Act of 1926 taken by the Gárda, that prosecutions were in all cases taken by the Revenue Commissioners under that Act. The prosecutions taken by the Revenue Commissioners were taken under the Finance Act and not under the Betting Act. That is the Act which imposes the duty on bets and it is in the Finance Act that the Revenue Commissioners are empowered to make statutory regulations for securing the payment of duty on bets.

Deputy Cooper.

189. If no prosecutions were brought by you under the Act and no prosecutions were brought by the Gárda under the Act, no prosecutions can have been brought?—The only prosecutions we would institute under the Betting Act would be under section 19 for obstructing an officer of Customs and Excise in the exercise of the powers conferred by the section, failing to answer any question asked of him by the officer in the exercise of his powers or giving an answer which is false or misleading.

190. Who would prosecute in the event of a breach of Section 2 of the Act?— We would. Those are two types of cases under the Betting Act of 1926. We would proceed in respect of unlicensed bookmaking under that Section. The majority of the prosecutions were taken under the Finance Act of 1926 for breaches of statutory regulations, of which I have a copy here, made by the Revenue Commissioners pursuant to Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1926:

“The Revenue Commissioners may make regulations for securing the payment of the duty on bets, and generally for carrying the provisions of this Act in relation to such duty into effect and in particular for”

and so on.

Sub-section (2) states:

“Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with a regulation made under this Section shall be guilty of an offence under this Section, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to an Excise penalty of five hundred pounds.”

The proceeding for non-payment of duty is contained in Section 24 (4) of the Finance Act, 1926:

“Every person who fails or neglects to pay any sum payable by him in respect of the duty imposed by this Section shall be guilty of an offence under this Section, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to an Excise penalty of five hundred pounds.”

Prosecutions are taken either under that Section or for breach of the statutory regulations made under Section 25 of the Finance Act of 1926. The majority of our prosecutions are taken under that Act.

191. You would prosecute under Section 16 or 17 in respect of hours of business?— We have had no case brought to our notice in which bookmaking is followed except under a certificate of registration.

192. Would you be the party who would prosecute in those cases?—Yes, because it would be an Excise penalty.

193. Senator Bennett.—Where a miniature racecourse is maintained in a betting office, bets being taken on each race, is it provided for under the Act?—The position is, if a bookmaker gets a certificate of suitability of premises he applies to us for registration of premises. We have no option; we must register the premises and issue a certificate. Apparently there is no power to deal with him during the currency of that registration. The only power is when the next application comes on for a renewal of the certificate of suitability. If these practices are to be stopped it must be done by legislation. I will take the recommendations which General O’Duffy made in his evidence seriatim:

“That betting transactions in betting offices with persons under 18 years of age be made an offence punishable by severe penalties.”

We have no objection to that proposal from a Revenue point of view provided it will be made a police offence and not a revenue offence.

The second recommendation is:—

“That it be an offence for a bookmaker to allow persons under eighteen years of age to remain on his premises, and that it be an offence to send a person under eighteen to a betting office.”

To that we have no objection, with the same proviso. The next is:—

“It is an offence for a woman to go into a publichouse with a child in her arms, and the same provision should apply here.”

There is no objection to that provision provided the police are entrusted with the task of enforcing it.

The next recommendation is with regard to the minimum bet. I have explained that I am opposed to that on revenue grounds.

The next is that the calling out of odds on registered premises be made an offence.

There is no revenue objection to that proposal.

It has also been recommended that lists of winners, starting prices, sporting sheets, and literature should not be exhibited on licensed premises.

We have no objection so far as lists of winners, starting prices, and so on, are concerned, but I am afraid to exclude literature altogether from bookmakers’ premises would be going a little bit too far.

194. Deputy Cooper.—There is a misprint there. It should be lists of runners, and not lists of winners. That would prevent a bookmaker even having a newspaper?—Yes. I think that proposal could be accepted, but the principle would have to be carefully considered. I wish it to be clearly understood that in offering these observations on General O’Duffy’s evidence. I am doing so solely with the object of placing before the Committee our views on the matter, so that they may be in a position to judge how far the police and the Revenue authorities are in agreement on proposals which have already been formulated for the Committee’s consideration.

195. Senator Foran.—Do you not think that it is rather handicapping the punter to exclude all the information possible such as was suggested there?—If you ask me my personal opinion, I think it is. That is why I would not be in favour of the proposal to exclude sporting literature from the bookmakers’ offices—lists of runners, and anything which has relation to the practice and which would facilitate a bookmaker in carrying on business.

196. Senator MacLoughlin.—You would say that lists of runners would facilitate him in paying on results?—The practice is, as you know, that a bookmaker is supplied with typed sheets which contain all the entries for the day. On these sheets he marks off the numbers of the horses that are to run.

197. The probable starters and jockeys are published in special editions of the newspapers every day?—I am aware of that, but the bookmaker receives last-minute information of the actual horses that go to the post.

198. And the betting?—He gets the betting immediately the result is declared. If there is any ante-post betting possibly he is in a position to be furnished with the information.

199. From the point of view of the man going to bet, would it not be desirable to have that information?—It would be desirable if you could rely on the fact that the man would make his bet and go about his business. The objections which have been raised to the showing up of lists of runners in registered betting offices is that men might remain on from race to race. That is purely a police aspect of the question. We have no violent objection to that from the revenue point of view.

200. Chairman.—As regards your statement about the 40 per cent., the 60 per cent. and the 50 per cent. of 2/- bets in the various years, have you any information as to whether those people are now betting because of the facilities that are available or are these people who heretofore went in for street betting?—I have no definite information on the point, but I would incline to the belief that that betting was carried on prior to the Betting Act of 1926. We have no figures. It is really difficult to commit yourself to a definite expression of opinion but it is my own opinion that the betting was carried on to a considerable extent, if not wholly to the exact extent of the present time. Certainly a very high percentage of it was carried on prior to the legalising of cash betting. These were bets accepted under 2/-. The common unit is 1/-.

The net recommendation is “That it be an offence for a bookmaker to cause or permit overcrowding or loitering on licensed premises.” That again is a police matter to which we have no objection.

They next recommend “That it be an offence for persons to loiter or congregate outside licensed premises.”

That also is a police matter.

The next recommendation is “That it persons in receipt of unemployment benefit or poor law relief should be debarred from betting on licensed premises; that their benefits should cease on proof that a betting transaction has been made by them or on their behalf while in receipt of such relief.”

The Revenue Commissioners are not remotely connected with that proposal. It may have a certain reaction on the revenue, but we are not prepared to press that objection, on the distinct understanding that if effect is given to that proposal—it is difficult to say how effect can be given to it—the police should be entrusted with the duty of carrying out their own suggestion.

The next recommendation is:—

“That persons who bet with licensed bookmakers should be in a position to recover debts resulting from bets as ordinary bets and vice versa.”

That is a matter on which there are two schools of thought. I have the impression that a number of bookmakers would not be in favour of that proposal. I am not speaking on behalf of bookmakers but it is a proposal in which we, from the revenue point of view, are not actively interested. It is really a matter between the bookmaker and the punters. Whether a provision which would make betting debts recoverable in law would have the effect of either increasing or diminishing the amount of betting is a moot question.

201. Senator Bennett.—Would it not be a good thing in all cases of prosecutions that the police authorities and the revenue authorities should co-operate? After all, this Betting Act legalised betting. The revenue authorities are very much interested in the matter and the police are interested, perhaps, from the moral point of view. Would it not be well that they should co-operate and not have any sort of antagonism?— There is no antagonism; there is co-operation between the police and the revenue authorities.

202. I understand from General O’Duffy that a great many cases were outlined but that prosecutions were taken only in a very small number of cases.

Witness.—That was Mr. O’Hegarty’s evidence. I have touched on that aspect of the question.

203. Deputy Cooper.—The difficulty in the way of co-operation is that you wish to achieve different objects. The primary functions of the Revenue Commissioners is to collect revenue, and the primary function of the police is to preserve public order?—Certainly; that is it in a nutshell.

204. Deputy Doyle.—You have nothing to say about the suitability of premises? Could you express any opinion, say, on the suitability of a man who provides a wooden hut for himself in a tenement area in which to carry on a betting business? In your opinion is that a suitable premises?

Witness.—Are you asking me for my personal opinion?

Deputy Doyle.—Yes.

Witness.—My personal opinion is that it is not a suitable premises.

205. Deputy Doyle.—Could you express any opinion as to the suitability of a man who goes into such premises in such an area?—Of course that is really trenching on the police side of the question. The issuing of a certificate of personal fitness and of suitability of premises is exclusively a police matter. When a man comes along with a certificate of fitness and his fee of £10 we must issue a certificate. Similarly, when he obtains his certificate in respect of premises and pays his fee of £20 we must issue a registration certificate.

206. Senator Foran.—Could you tell us what amount of revenue is derived from people who are in receipt of outdoor relief and unemployment money?—No, sir; and I do not see any means of arriving at that figure. It has been suggested from this evidence that by tracing the records in the bookmakers’ register we could possibly give the numbers. I am not aware how a bookmaker could, when he registers a bet, say whether a person is or is not in receipt of outdoor relief or unemployment benefit.

Senator MacLoughlin.—You or I or nobody else could say.

Senator Foran.—The only way to get over that would be to make each punter going in produce his card.

207. Chairman.—Taking it broadly, the two chief points on which you disagree are hours and limitation in betting?— To the limitation of hours proposal and the minimum bets, there are very strong revenue objections.

208. Deputy Cooper.—Have you any views as to General O’Duffy’s suggestion to prohibit betting attractions outside betting premises—sandwich men and so on?—We have no views.

209. The decrease in the volume of betting would not seriously affect the revenue?—No, sir. I do not think very many people are led into a betting office by reason of the fact that there is a signpost directing them to a betting office. The Committee may like to have samples of the official tax-paid betting sheets in respect of course betting and office betting. Those are simply the system devised for the collection of duties on bets.

210. Senator Foran.—Have you any idea as to the value, from the revenue point of view, as between credit and cash betting?—I have no figures available. I have not extracted figures. It would be extremely difficult to do so. As a general principle it may be taken that the bigger bets are done under the credit system rather than the cash system.

211. Deputy Cooper.—More is done in cash in volume and more in actual sums of money under the credit betting?—Yes. As specimens of the official tax-paid betting sheets have been handed in, I would like to tell you the position by explaining that the duty on bets is collected in two ways. First, on the basis of certified returns, and, secondly, by the use of official tax-paid betting sheets. Under the law all bets are required to be recorded on official tax-paid betting sheets. All betting sheets are in certain denominations in respect of the 2½ per cent. duty and the 5 per cent. duty. Every bet on any event of any kind made with a bookmaker is liable to duty. The duty is chargeable at the rate of 2½ per cent. of the amount of the stake in the case of bets which fulfil all of the following conditions: The event must be either a horse race or a greyhound coursing contest. The 2½ per cent. rate of duty is payable in respect of bets made on Irish racecourses in respect of horse races decided thereat, and of bets made at greyhound coursing meetings and greyhound racing in respect of events decided thereat. In respect of all bets made in all other circumstances, the rate of duty is 5 per cent. Under the law all bets must be recorded on these official tax-paid betting sheets, which are provided in certain denominations. These sheets are issued by the Customs and Excise. Provision has been made for their purchase at certain racecourses. On this sheet, which is at the 5 per cent. rate, a bookmaker pays duty of 5/-, and he is entitled to record bets up to the sum of £10. If he records bets under £10 he is entitled to a repayment of proportion of the duty which he has paid. If he exceeds the value of the betting sheet, he is required to show a corresponding duty. We introduced that arrangement in the beginning rather than the system of tickets which obtains on the other side of the water. Here we have a complete record, or should have a complete record, of all the bets accepted. An alternative arrangement is provided also under the Finance Act regulations. We accept certified returns furnished weekly by the bookmaker of all bets accepted by him. The bookmaker gives us a return of all bets accepted in the week ending Saturday. He is required, under the conditions, to forward that return, together with remittance for the duty, not later than the following Thursday. As security for allowing him to pay duty on this basis of a certified return instead of recording the bets on official betting sheets, we require him to enter into a bond.

212. Senator Foran.—Could you, from your own experience, tell us whether a bookmaker makes a profit by the present arrangement as regards the tax?—I could not tell you that. I will explain the system under which the bookmaker works. The bookmaker shoulders the tax on a losing bet. If I have a pound on a loser on the course the bookmaker pays sixpence. If the bet is in a registered betting office he pays a shilling. If I invest a pound on the course on a horse that wins at 4 to 1, instead of getting £5 I get £4 17s. 6d. I have to pay the tax on the money won as well as on the amount of the stake.

213. You have no idea of whether that results in a profit or a loss to the bookmaker?—I could not tell you that.

214. Senator Bennett.—It is pretty well known that some bookmakers are not men of very great character. What sort of a check is there on their returns?—Every bookmaker is subject to a continuous survey by the authorities. The Revenue Commissioners have power to call for books, documents, slips, vouchers, telegrams—every docket relating to the business of a bookmaker.

215. Does that apply to course slips?— Yes. Course books, field books, betting slips, vouchers, and so on, may be called up for a headquarters examination at the instance of the Accountant-General of Revenue.

Chairman.—Than you very much, Mr. Randall. You have given us very valuable information, and we are very much obliged to you.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m.

* See Schedule to opening Memorandum.