I propose: "That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 1." This is an amendment which I opposed in the Seanad, but which was carried unanimously, so that I think that if the Dáil were not to agree to it the position would be that the Bill would be held up. That would be undesirable inasmuch as the ordinary bookmakers who carry on their business in a legal way would be subject to the tax, whereas the other bookmakers, owing to the Bill not coming into operation, would escape the tax. This amendment provides that an application to the Superintendent of the Civic Guard for a certificate of personal fitness shall be approved and countersigned by two Peace Commissioners, and that an advertisement in, at least, two newspapers circulating in the district shall be inserted. I do not think that the publicity and the extra formality required by this amendment will achieve any useful purpose. On the other hand, I think that any inconvenience that may result from the amendment will be greatly less than the inconvenience that would result from having the Bill held up for a period during which the betting tax would fall on bookmakers who carry on their business in a way that is legal at present.
SHOP HOURS (DRAPERY TRADES, DUBLIN AND DISTRICTS) BILL, 1926. - BETTING BILL, 1926—FROM THE SEANAD.
I move: "That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 2." This is an amendment which further eases the situation for bookmakers who may have been convicted of any crime. As the Bill originally stood, the ground of objection to the registration of a bookmaker was that he had committed an offence under this or any Act. It was felt that the words "under any Act" were much too wide. As Deputy Johnson pointed out, it might mean that a man, convicted of playing football on the streets, might be disqualified, and we inserted the words "under any Act relating to gaming or gaming-houses." In the Seanad it was pointed out that many people who might have been convicted in the past under an Act relating to gaming or gaming-houses might be trusted under the new conditions of the law to observe it in future. The amendment was passed providing that a bookmaker should be disqualified under the Betting Act, or under any Act relating to gaming or gaming-houses, provided the offence was committed after the passing of the Betting Act. I think this is a reasonable amendment.
I move: "That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 3." This is parallel to Amendment No. 1." It relates to the licensing of premises.
I move:—"That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 4." In all the circumstances, I think, this is a reasonable amendment. It is an amendment which I suggested myself, as I found the disposition in the Seanad to amend the Bill very drastically and in a way which I, and others who considered the matter, thought was not desirable. The whole problem of dealing with cash betting is new. We cannot foresee the difficulties that will arise, nor can we be absolutely certain as to how the provisions of the Bill will operate, and I think it is desirable that after a two-years' trial the Act should expire and, in the light of experience which will have been gained, the Oireachtas should consider fresh proposals.