Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1964 > Select Committee on Statutory Instruments > Report No. 01 - Statutory Instruments

MIONTUAIRISCÍ NA FIANAISE

(MINUTES OF EVIDENCE)

Dé Céadaoin, 1 Iúil, 1964.

Wednesday, 1st July, 1964.

The Committee met at 4.30 p.m.

PUBLIC SALES OF GREYHOUNDS REGULATIONS, 1963 (S.I. No. 34 of 1963).

Messrs. F. Griffin, S.C., D. J. O’Malley, Solicitor and P. B. Holland (Bord na gCon) called and examined.

1. Chairman.—The Committee has got into certain difficulties in considering the Public Sales of Greyhounds Regulations, 1963, and we felt we could not clear the matter up without some assistance. I wish to thank the Board representatives for coming.

Senator Sheldon.—I understand you already have been warned about some of our queries. There are one or two minor additional ones which I do not think will be very material. The first query is in relation to the business about the form of application—the application for a permit or licence. As far as we know there is not a prescribed form issued. If there is, that would solve that problem as far as we are concerned. There does not appear to be anything in the Regulations prescribing one but the Act suggests that there should be. The question then arises as to whether or not there is a prescribed form.

Mr. Griffin.—The situation is that Instrument No. 34 of 1963 was laid before the House last year. Last summer, prosecutions under the Regulations were taken against Shelbourne Park and by virtue of defects, the Regulations have in fact been re-drafted by me. One of the things being included in the re-draft is a prescribed form which will be attached to the Regulations and that will overcome this difficulty straight away. In the intended alteration there will be no provision for permits for auctioneers. That Regulation will have gone.

Senator Sheldon.—They would be Articles 3, 4 and 5?

Mr. Griffin.—Yes. Anyone licensed under the Auctioneers Act would be entitled to act as an auctioneer. In fact, Regulations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have gone. The new draft has not finally been approved by the Board as yet but the Regulations will be made by the Board within the next month or two.

2. Chairman.—Have those Regulations already been expunged then?

Mr. Griffin.—They are about to be.

Senator Sheldon.—What about article 9?

Mr. Griffin.—That Regulation deals with a person holding public sales of greyhounds as distinct from the person holding an auction.

Senator Sheldon.—If these Regulations are going, I suppose it wipes out the necessity for a discussion on them.

Mr. Griffin.—You still have queries in regard to licences.

3. Senator Sheldon.—The Act, in section 38, makes certain provisions about permits.

Mr. Griffin.—It is an enabling section.

Senator Sheldon.—The section says “may in particular”. It raises the nice point of what “may” means in an Act. Subsection (2) (i) says the Board may make charges in respect of the grant, retention or renewal of a permit. The Regulations do not say anything about retention. One of our queries is what does renewal precisely mean. How would you apply for renewal and how long of a gap after 31st December would a person be allowed before applying for a renewal? I do not know whether you have run into that problem.

Mr. Holland.—We have not. There are only four sales companies. Sales are held during the racing season which terminates on the first Saturday of December, the new racing season opening in February. They all were granted permits at the beginning of the season and all renewed their permits at the beginning of the next season.

Senator Sheldon.—Just what the Act meant by making a distinction between retention and renewal is more of our business than yours, really. After all, we passed the Act.

4. Chairman.—Is it in the Act that the licence must be renewed annually?

Mr. Griffin.—It is laid down in the Regulations that it shall remain in force until 31st December. It will automatically expire on 31st December. It will be precisely the same every year.

5. Senator Sheldon.—I suggest that the Board take a look at it to ensure that what you do in the future complies with the wording of the Act in this respect since there apparently was a reason for the distinction in the Act between retention and renewal. I am not a lawyer and I should not like to say what the implication is.

Mr. Griffin.—We had the same difficulty in wondering what the legislature meant by retention as distinct from renewal because renewal simply means the issue of a similar type of licence to a person who already had one. The words are disjunctive and must be interpreted disjunctively. We have provision in the Regulations for the granting of a new licence or renewal of an existing licence. We are not sure what the legislature meant by the distinction.

6. Senator Sheldon.—The only point that would arise is what exactly is meant by renewal. Supposing one of the bodies did not, in fact operate in a particular year, would it be regarded as renewal if that group opted again after a year’s absence? Would that be application for renewal of the licence?—I am afraid it would not. The word “renewal” means to renew something already in existence.

Once the 31st December is past nothing is in existence. There appears to be nothing in these Regulations to change that—as to when you apply for renewal. It appears to me that anyone applying for renewal would have to apply before the existing permit lapsed. Is that not so? —We are prepared to meet the Committee in any way.

If someone came along in December and said: “I wish to retain my permit next year,” would you charge a fee? Could you argue in court that this is a renewal?—It certainly would be arguable in court.

7. Senator Sheldon.—I am sure you do not want trouble. In Article 4 paragraph (2), it is provided in regard to permits that the holder of a permit shall comply with the lawful directions of the Board. In regard to a licence the licensee shall comply with the directions of the Board so far as they are lawful or unlawful.

Mr. Griffin.—I did not draft the original Regulations. You simply cannot compel a person to do something which is in any way unlawful. One of the things you asked was what type of direction the Board had in mind. It is this. Sales start at 11 o’clock in the morning. The modus vivendi is, trials take place first. When they are over, there is usually a period of threequarters of an hour before the sales proper start even though the sales are advertised as commencing at 11 o’clock. Suppose that the electric hare broke down and that there would be an hour during which there could not be trials, an hour will be wasted with possible loss to buyers who have come from England. These buyers may miss the boat or plane in the evening and the Board want to be in a position to start the sales in respect of the dogs already tried and when the hare has been repaired to start trials again and hold the auction for these dogs then. This is the sort of thing which is not covered by the Regulations. Supposing the time of a plane to London were changed from 3.30 to 2.30 and an application for a licence has been made for an 11 a.m. start, the Board would like the auctioneer to start earlier so that the owners of the dogs would get a fair run and have as many buyers from England as possible present. That is the type of direction that is required, and that would not be covered in the general sales regulations.

Senator Sheldon.—Some of the remarks apply to permits which are now disappearing, but licences will continue.

Mr. Griffin.—Licences will continue.

8. Senator Sheldon.—In regard to licences, in paragraph 11 (7) it says:

The Board may, on the grant or renewal of a licence under these regulations attach such other conditions as it thinks fit to the licence.

Mr. Griffin.—In my opinion, and another senior counsel has advised on this also, the purpose of attaching other conditions is that particular circumstances might apply to one company and not to the other companies holding sales. It would be unreasonable and unfair to expect companies to have to comply with any conditions which did not apply to them in particular. That is the purpose of that article. Under section 38 (2) (c) Regulations may in particular make provision for the attachment of conditions to licences. We have both taken the same view independently as Mr. McMahon has also advised on this particular aspect because it arose as a result of a dispute with one of the companies carrying on business here. We both advised that we were entitled to attach conditions to individual licences, and that it would be unreasonable to expect that companies to whom particular circumstances did not apply should have to comply with all conditions.

9. Senator Cole.—Can you give an example of one of those conditions?

Mr. Holland.—One of them would be the question of commission. Shelbourne Park get a full catalogue. The turnover in Shelbourne Park may be £10,000. The rate of commission may be 1/- in the pound. Limerick turnover might be £2,000 and their rate of commission is 1/- in the pound. But if Limerick sought to increase their commission to 2/- in the pound because of their turnover, we may allow them. whereas we would not allow Shelbourne Park, because of their turnover to charge 2/- in the pound commission.

10. Senator Sheldon.—You are dealing with people who are big enough to squeal. It is not like some small concern which could be battered into subjection by the Board. In paragraph 16 (1) there is a question of sales catalogues and the regulations say that the catalogues shall be of a type approved by the Board. What is the type approved?

Mr. Griffin.—The type of catalogue that has been in use by each of the companies prior to the coming into force of the Regulations is still the same. Each of the four companies has been allowed to carry on with the same type of catalogue. What we are seeking to guard against here is the issue of, say, single sheets of paper or closely typed prints, like, for example, the Aer Lingus ticket conditions. The Board want to ensure that the type of catalogue issued will be in the normal format and that sufficient space will be available for the particulars of each dog and to allow prospective purchasers to note down the price and the bidding. Then if they are interested in a particular dog, they can note down particulars and relate the prices and bidding of the earlier dogs to that of their fancy. Also there was the question of the times done at trials, the place obtained by the dog in the trial and that sort of thing. It is to get over the difficulty of, say, a sheet of paper being issued. I suggest that it is highly advisable to consider the type of catalogue rather than what it contains.

11. Senator Sheldon.—One or two things have struck me since the Committee met. One is the differentiation between a control steward and a stipendiary steward. Does it mean that the control steward does not get paid? I hope it does not. My point is on the definition in regard to their powers and duties. We are told that a control steward is an authorised official.

Mr. Holland.—Both are. The control steward is appointed by the Board and attends every race meeting and every session of trials and every sales. A stipendiary steward is more or less his boss. He is on a roving commission but he generally attends all sales. As I have said, both are authorised officials of the Board.

12. Senator Sheldon.—The Regulations do not state that the stipendiary steward is an authorised officer. Of course it does not say the control steward is, either, but it says the control steward is appointed by the Board. It is a very nice distinction.

Mr. Holland.—The control steward must have a permit under Regulations made by the Board. The Regulation says that persons carrying out specific duties must have permits from the Board. A stipendiary steward does not need to have a permit.

Senator Sheldon.—I cannot see how they can carry out their powers if they have not.

Mr. Holland.—They would be authorised under section 2 of the Act.

Mr. Griffin.—Section 2 is the definition section.

Senator Sheldon.—The Regulations do not say a stipendiary steward is an authorised official.

Mr. Griffin.—He does not have to be. He becomes an authorised official once he has authority in writing from the Board.

13. Senator Sheldon.—Would it be possible for a person to act without having authority?

Mr. Griffin.—If he has not authority, he could not carry out his functions. Both control stewards and stipendiary stewards are defined in article 1 of the Regulations.

Senator Sheldon.—The section does say that the control steward fulfils the duties of an authorised officer but it does not say that the stipendiary steward is authorised. The very fact that the latter case is left out might raise a doubt.

Mr. Griffin.—It is quite easy to amend the definition.

14. Senator Sheldon.—Regulation No. 17 (3) raises the question of impounding the identity card of a greyhound “until such time as the greyhound is reinstated or permanently disqualified.” What does that mean?

Mr. Holland.—The identity card is returned but it is marked “disqualified.”

15. Senator Sheldon.—Article 11 (5) of the Regulations refers to accommodation facilities prescribed by the Board. The section says this has to be attended to by way of Regulation. Do you have a Regulation about accommodation facilities?

Mr. Griffin.—There is no Regulation as such. The use of the word “prescribed” does not necessarily mean that the Board must have a Regulation.

Senator Sheldon.—I do not believe that in law it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Griffin.—The expression “may from time to time require” would be a better definition.

Senator Sheldon.—I wonder if there is a sort of minimum standard. I presume these things vary.

Mr. Holland.—There would be an inspection of the premises before hand.

Chairman.—If you used the expression “from time to time required——”

Mr. Griffin.—There could be a better definition. Before the meeting ends, we should like to say that we are prepared to meet the Committee in any way. Our main anxiety is to preserve Article 23 of the Regulations which deals with the duties of persons holding public sales of greyhounds. We brought some 53 summonses last summer against one company here in town who would not give the information required by the Regulations. Difficulties arose and we had to amend these Regulations to ensure that we could get the necessary information. As you are aware, Sir, the small man down the country is the man the Board is seeking to protect, that is the man with one or two greyhounds. In one case last year, a dog catalogued for sale was sold privately for £1,000. Then the dog was reported in the papers as sold to an English buyer at £2,000. This was a fraud and regulations are drafted to try to eliminate that sort of thing. We have amended the Regulations radically to ensure that there will be no ostensibly private sales during an auction.

In another case it happened that a dog was sold privately prior to auction. It was then put on the rostrum and knocked down by auction to the same buyer for a sum of £200 in excess of the sale price. The sale was released to the papers at the higher price. The English buyer who had his agent operating here was asked to pay the higher price. This was an attempted fraud on him and it is that type of thing the Board are trying to eliminate.

Chairman.—Unless you wish to add anything to what you have said, there are no further questions. Thank you very much indeed for coming here.

The Committee adjourned at 5.5 p.m.