Committee on Finance. - Gaming and Lotteries Bill, 1955—Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 8, Section 17, sub-section (1), to insert "and" at the end of paragraph (d), line 8, delete "and" in paragraph (e), line 9, and delete paragraph (f), line 10.

This amendment arises from remarks made by Deputy Costello on Section 30 when he urged that the words "any other matter which appears to the court to be relevant" should be deleted, and that in considering an application, the court should only take into consideration specific matters. In accepting the suggestion on Section 30, I feel that it is only proper to do the same on Section 17.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 8, Section 18, to delete paragraph (b), lines 19 to 21, inclusive, and substitute:—

(b) by the applicant—from any particular part of an order of the District Court granting a certificate, and.

The purpose of this amendment is to permit an applicant to appeal to the Circuit Court against an decision of the District Court shortening to less than a year the period in which the licensed amusement hall might operate.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 8, Section 18, to add the following:—

(2) A certificate granted by the District Court shall remain in full force until altered or revoked on appeal.

(3) Where, in the case of the refusal of a certificate by the District Court, the applicant is the holder of a subsisting licence the licence shall continue in force pending the determination of an appeal against such refusal.

I undertook on Committee Stage to consider a suggestion put forward by Deputy Moran and supported by other Deputies which is now embodied in the first part of this amendment and which will appear as sub-section (2) of Section 18. I am also sponsoring a proposal which will appear as sub-section (3) of Section 18. Having accepted the principle of Deputy Moran's proposal, I feel that I should go the whole way and provide for continuance of a subsisting licence, pending the determination of an appeal against a refusal of the District Court to grant a certificate for a new licence.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 9, Section 23, to delete paragraph (b), lines 20 to 22, inclusive.

I am asking for the deletion of clause (b) of Section 23 as a result of the general discussion on this and the following section on Committee Stage. As there seemed to be some confusion on that stage as to what type of lottery could be promoted under Section 23 and by what class of person, I may explain that the section is intended to facilitate, without formality of any kind, the types of sweepstakes which are promoted in offices or factories on the days of big races—the kind of small lottery with tickets costing 1/- or 2/6 and prizes of a couple of pounds. Such sweeps are only promoted very occasionally and do no harm to anybody. The fact that the sale of tickets in such sweeps is confined to the members of societies or organisations, or offices or factories, will ensure in itself that such lotteries are not of large proportions.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 9, before Section 24, to insert the following:—

A lottery shall not be unlawful if—

(a) it is promoted as part of a dance, concert or other like event and the persons arranging for the holding of the event derive no personal profit from the event or from the lottery, and

(b) no person may win more than the value of £5 in the lottery.

In deference to suggestions made on the Committee Stage by a number of Deputies that raffles at dances and such events, where the promoters get no personal profit, should be permitted for prizes higher than the 10/- limit which we had fixed for circuses, carnivals and licensed amusement halls, I am inserting a provision that the dances at which such raffles are held and the raffles themselves must not be promoted for personal profit and I am providing that no person may win more than the value of £5. I retain doubts as to the wisdom of departing from the general prize limits in order to facilitate dances and concerts for charitable purposes, but it is only a small departure and I am prepared to propose it.

Is the Minister satisfied that a ham, a goose and a bottle of whiskey are not worth more than £5?

This matter was raised on the Committee Stage and the Minister, of course, is well aware that at functions like dances, the main—or very largely the main—profit made at a number of dances run for charitable purposes is made on lotteries and raffles held at these dances. It seems to me that there is not much point in limiting the value of the prize to £5. The general scheme of the Bill, of course, is to discourage the lotteries carried on on a large scale throughout the country and the Bill permits lotteries to be carried on for certain purposes.

As I understand it, the policy of the Minister is to discourage, except for certain purposes, the holding of lotteries and then to have control of them. I do not think any great harm will be done to the public and I do not think the public will be adversely affected in any way if lotteries are permitted at dances and other functions, with prize funds of £5. It is general knowledge that it would be impossible to make such a lottery in any way financially beneficial to the organisers of it, if the value of the prize fund was kept at £5 limit by the Minister. If we are to have control of lotteries to be held on the evening of functions such as dances or concerts, I do not see any harm coming from increasing the £5 limit to—I would suggest—£20. This would mean in effect that lotteries would, in fact, be a financial success. I know they certainly will not be a success if this limit of £5 is maintained and I would like the Minister, therefore, to reconsider this limit of £5 and increase the sum to at least £20. The harm that might be done in doing that will be negligible. People will not suffer any great damage in holding a lottery at a dance, a carnival, or in a hall in which some function is being held, if the value of the first prize is increased to £20. I have in mind persons who organise charitable functions and who have to meet very high overheads in They can only cover such overheads in part by the admission fees and, in order to make a profit—in some cases quite a meagre profit—they hold raffles. I do not think such raffles will be a success if this limit of £5 is maintained and I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider that aspect of the situation.

I interjected before and asked if the Minister could tell us what is the value of a hamper containing a turkey, a goose, a bottle of whiskey and a ham. At the present moment such a hamper has a certain value, but it could be worth a good deal more very soon. I agree with what Deputy Costello has said and I suggest this particular type of raffle should not have a limit set in the Bill at all. The Minister knows that if some charitable organisation or some public-spirited citizen wants to give a prize in a lottery consisting of a cabinet of cutlery, that cabinet of cutlery will obviously be worth much more than £5.

If there is general agreement in the House——

I suggest it should be £20.

Do not put any limit at all. It is not likely to go above £5, but it might.

If I might intervene. The reason for putting £5 is not based on any puritanical grounds at all; it is to avoid a practice which might grow, following on other institutions, of putting up motor-cars and things of that description. It is for that reason that the figure of £5 was set. I think the Minister would be prepared to make it £20, if the House agrees.

I think these things are generally donated. They are not bought by the promoters. I think we could go beyond £5.

"Cadged" is the word.

There is a hamper at the present moment in a window in O'Connell Street and it is value for at least £20.

Then it is wrong.

Will the House agree to make it £20?

Make it £25 and we will all agree.

Is it to be £20 or £25?

£25—that is one-quarter of £100.

Will the House agree to insert that now?

Sub-section (b) says:—

"No person may win more than the value of £5."

Is it the intention to substitute £25 there instead of £5?

Would it not be possible for an individual to win the first, second and third prizes? Will this £25 include the first, second and third prizes?

Not at all. It is not intended to. If he wins the three prizes he is entitled to get the three prizes.

The first prize is not to exceed £25.

He could win all three.

Amendment amended, by leave, to read:—

In page 9, before Section 24, to insert the following:—

A lottery shall not be unlawful if—

(a) it is promoted as part of a dance, concert or other like event and the persons arranging for the holding of the event derive no personal profit from the event or from the lottery, and

(b) no person may win more than the value of £25 in the lottery.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 9, to delete Section 24, lines 26 to 38, inclusive, and substitute:—

A lottery shall not be unlawful if—

(a) either—

(i) it is promoted as part of a circus or other travelling show on a day on which under Section 6 gaming is permitted, or

(ii) it is promoted as part of a carnival, bazaar, sports meeting, local festival, exhibition or other like event on a day on which under Section 7 gaming is permitted and the persons arranging for the holding of the event derive no personal profit from the event or from the lottery, or (iii) it is promoted by the licensee of a licensed amusement hall or funfair as part of the entertainment therein, and

(b) the tickets are not sold outside the place or premises where the event is in progress, and

(c) they are sold only on the same day as the draw and announcement of results, and

(d) the price of each ticket is not more than sixpence, and

(e) no person may win more than the value of ten shillings in the lottery, and

(f) neither taking part in nor the result of the lottery entitles the participant to take part in any other lottery or game or otherwise to receive or be eligible to compete for any money or money's worth.

As Deputies will recollect, there were suggestions on the Committee Stage that, in moving amendment No. 35, dealing with lotteries at circuses, carnivals and licensed amusement halls, I was in some way departing from the general principles of the Bill. I have had the whole matter reexamined and I am satisfied that there has been no departure from general principles. Perhaps an explanation of this amendment, which I am moving now and which involves the deletion of Section 24, will clear the air.

The promotion of games of chance in Parts II and III of this Bill is permitted for stakes not exceeding 6d. and prizes not exceeding 10/-; that is under Section 6 for commercial purposes, Section 7 for purposes other than private profit and Section 13 for commercial purposes also. This amendment will permit the promotion of lotteries under Part IV of the Bill for tickets priced not more than 6d.; and prizes not exceeding 10/- in the identical circumstances of Sections 6, 7 and 13 of Parts II and III of the Bill.

It was, of course, a defect originally in Section 23 of the Bill that there was no limitation on the price of tickets; and the amendment moved on the Committee Stage sought to give effect to our second thoughts. Deputies should get out of their heads that there is a departure from the principles enunciated in the Second Reading in now allowing lotteries at circuses and licensed halls. These lotteries, with stakes not exceeding 6d. and prizes of not more than 10/-, do not differ in any essential from the games of chance for like amounts. A lottery on the wheel-of-fortune is almost indistinguishable in its results from the collective game of pongo; and there is no good reason why the one should not be allowed as well as the other so long as the stakes are kept so low as not to bring about the quick expenditure of all the players ready cash and the prizes are not so high as to be a compelling inducement to try to "get rich quick".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 10, Section 27, to delete sub-section (1), lines 22 to 24, inclusive, and substitute the following:—

(1) The District Court may grant a licence for the promotion, during such period, not exceeding one year, as shall be specified in the licence, of periodical lotteries in accordance with this section.

The purpose of this amendment, which was suggested on Committee by Deputy D. Costello, is to permit an appeal in Section 31 from that part of the order of the District Court which limits the period during which a lottery under licence may be promoted. The District Court in Dublin, for instance, might allow different charities licences for differing periods. This amendment, with an appropriate amendment on Section 31, will enable any promoter who feels that the period of his licence is too short to appeal against the decision of the district justice.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 10, Section 27, sub-section (2), line 33, to delete "three" and substitute "five".

The purpose of this amendment is to make the figures in lines 31 and 33 correspond. In moving an amendment on the Committee Stage to raise the figure from £300 to £500 in line 31 the Deputies concerned forgot to mention £500 again in line 33.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 11, Section 30, sub-section (1), insert "and" at the end of paragraph (a), line 13, delete "and" in paragraph (b), line 15, and delete paragraph (c), line 16.

As I explained on Section 17, I accepted a suggestion from Deputy D. Costello for the deletion of clause (c). I am not quite at ease about doing so but, nevertheless, I am giving way to the complaint that the section as drafted is too wide and the court should only consider specific matters at the hearing of an application for a licence.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 11, Section 31, to delete "and" at the end of paragraph (a), line 23, and to delete paragraph (b), lines 24 to 26, inclusive, and insert the following:—

(b) by the applicant—from the part of the order of the District Court specifying the period of the licence, and

(c) by any person who at the hearing opposed the application— from the order of the District Court granting the licence or the part of the order specifying the period of the licence.

The purpose of this amendment is apparent, remembering the reference I have already made to an amendment on Section 27.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 11, Section 32, line 28, to delete "Section 23 or 24" and substitute "Section 23, 24 or 25".

This is a drafting amendment consequential on the insertion of the new section before Section 24.

Amendment agreed to.

Before I move amendment No. 12 would the Minister indicate whether or not he is prepared to accept the amendment?

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 11, line 52, to delete "is void" and substitute "shall not be enforceable by action".

We have been getting on so well and meeting the Minister so well that I hoped we would get a spirit of cooperation in return. Most of the amendments so far have been from the ministerial side. This is the only amendment from this side of the House. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates that I am not asking for any change in the law to the extent that gambling debts shall in future become recoverable by court action. All I am asking is that an opportunity be given to the claimant to be heard in court, even though the decision will remain unenforcable; in other words, a decree will be unenforceable.

I appeal to the Minister to consider the position: a bookmaker may have a client who may have an account; in the course of business transactions over a season that client may succeed in winning wagering best running into thousands of pounds. He then begins to lose and he loses one, or two or three bets in succession. Despite his having received a substantial amount of money from the bookmaker prior to these losing bets he now refuses to pay the bookmaker. There is in existence an organisation—the Conyngham Club —with certain limited powers. If the bookmaker reports that defaulting client to the club, the club sends him an invitation to come along and discuss the matter and, if he cares to accept that invitation, the club can adjudicate. If he refuses to go they can adjudicate. But if he disputes the claim they have no function. I say that the bookmaker in that case is entitled to go to court and say: "Here are my transactions. This man has had a number of bets with me. He won £20 and I paid him each time. He has lost two or three bets and did not pay me. I only want to record that."

That is all I am asking for and I cannot understand why the Minister sees difficulty in meeting that. I know the decree will not be enforceable. Why do I argue it then? The bookmakers are a licensed and legalised body of men and they collect taxes by way of portion of their turnover which they contribute to the upkeep of the State. Very restrictive rules are operated against them. If a bookmaker defaults and he is reported to the Racing Club he is immediately put out of business. He has to apply to court every year to have his premises re-licensed and if I go and say: "This man has defaulted; he has not paid me on a bet," his licence is refused and he is out of business. Surely the dice are loaded sufficiently in favour of the imprudent man, and the bookmaker is entitled to this limited amount of freedom?

I do not know if the Minister did agree how many of these cases would, in fact, go to court, but I do believe that if the bookmaker were enabled to go to court and say: "Here are the transactions of this gentleman" the person who is described as the absolute welcher would be very reluctant to continue defaulting and would make some effort to come to terms with the bookmaker or pay by instalments. I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance in this regard. If the Minister were to say to me that he was sympathetic or, as he said on the Committee Stage, that what I am saying is common sense, and if he would give an undertaking that this matter would be again examined by the Government with a view to seeing if it could be met in some way, if not under this Bill, then under the Racing Bill proper, I would be prepared to accept that. But under the circumstance that the years have gone by, it is not fair to let this opportunity pass without making a fight for justice for these people because they are suffering a perpetuation of injustice.

At this stage I ask the Minister, can he argue against it? It is no use saying: "I am not doing it." I do not wish to introduce a discordant note into the discussion on this Bill. It has been very pleasant up to now. I do not want to say that this is something on which I am going to insist but I would ask the Minister for Finance, or perhaps the Taoiseach will say, if there is anything amoral in what I am asking? Is there anything unjust? Let us do something for these people who are a large section of the community, who give very good employment to a great many people, who are big taxpayers and ratepayers and who are also tax gatherers.

I do not think that the Minister or the Government should accept this amendment under any circumstances. I will give you an example of what can happen in rural Ireland, apart altogether from the betting end of it. We have the case of people in business in rural areas. You have the type who can induce a man to stay in a public house day after day, week after week, year after year, giving him drink "on the nod". It ends up with the publican owning that man's entire farm of land because the man has been living most of his life in the form of a dream.

I am speaking of gambling debts.

The same thing applies to the licensed bookmaker. You can have the individual who is allowed full scope by the bookmaker and his weaknesses are exploited by perhaps an unscrupulous bookmaker. Then the position is that the bookmaker, having allowed this man to get into debt for a huge sum, can go to court and force him to sell his property or his farm. That would be the logical conclusion to the Deputy's amendment and I think the scale must always be weighted in favour of the publican. I think the solution to the Deputy's problem is to eliminate as far as possible this system of credit betting. If a man wants to make a bet let him take his money to the bookmaker's office and bet with it. Then the problem Deputy Briscoe has mentioned will not arise.

I regret I am unable to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Briscoe. I gave him a promise that I would have the matter very sympathetically examined and I did so. For Deputy Briscoe's information, let me say that the Turf Board have a commission and they deal with some of the grievances the Deputy has pointed out. If I were to accept a change in the law, I am advised it would not alone affect bookmakers and racing but it would affect other people, including possibly those engaged in stock and share transactions. I do not intend to accept the amendment and propose to let the law remain as it is for the time being. I cannot give any promise as to what another Minister may do. As I said on the Second Reading, I agree with what Deputy Briscoe has said on many points, but there is this difficulty. If we were to use the courts we know that, having regard to public opinion, the children of some person, rather than have their father's name brought into court, might put themselves to great inconvenience to settle the matter with the bookmaker out of court. I do not think anybody should be put in that position.

Might I be permitted to add just a few remarks to what the Minister has said? I recognise that there are two points of view, possibly more than two points of view, on this matter. There is a lot to be said for enabling betting contracts or engagements, whatever you call them, to be enforced in law. Powerful arguments can be raised for that point of view. Equally powerful arguments can be raised for the point of view enshrined in this section. My own view, perhaps from knowledge of occurrences in court and otherwise, tends conservatively to leaving the law as it has been for the last 100 years. But it is reinforced by other considerations to which perhaps Deputy Briscoe has not adverted. While I am drawing attention to these other considerations, I am sure neither Deputy Briscoe nor any other Deputy will take me as casting any aspersion on bookmakers, individually or collectively, who are earning their living the same as any one of us is doing in our particular advocations.

Deputy Briscoe has said that what is required is not to enforce the contract but to allow the matter to be brought by a bookmaker against a defaulting client and have him exposed in court, the bookmaker paying the cost of that proceeding. He is not asking that this engagement should be enforceable in court but that the bookmaker should be entitled to go at his own expense and expose a particular defaulting client.

That could be used in the manner of blackmail, which may be too strong a word. May I give an example of the injustice that might be perpetrated? Take the case of a man who might be in a public position and who has a wife who might be engaged in betting transactions and a bookmaker threatens to bring an action for the recovery of her debts. That would put that man in a very invidous and serious position. I think it would be an abuse of the processes of our courts to allow that to happen. So far as I know, the practice of our courts still permits that machinery to be brought into action and it will still permit it after this Bill has been passed.

The practice in England is different. I do not think that we should permit such a practice to be brought into operation here. I think it would be wrong to enable, by positive action of this House, that procedure to take place and legalise the recovery of money not merely on racing transactions but on all sorts of gaming transactions. It frequently has been known that people will bet on all sorts of things such as cockroaches racing or two flies going up a wall.

Or on elections.

Yes, or on elections. It would be deplorable if we had to sue Deputy Briscoe to recover all the bets he made on election results.

They were all paid.

He paid up all right, but it would be deplorable if he had had to be sued. This is not the last Gaming Bill to come to this House. The bookmakers have several methods of pressure to deal with the problem they have. The first method is one that rests in their own hands— they should not give unlimited credit. If they had the power to bring a defaulting client to court, they might not be so keen or so astute as they are at present as to the investigation of the creditworthiness of a client. This is a matter that should be left entirely in their own hands. Their second method of dealing with the problem is the one which they use at present, that is, black-listing amongst themselves, and the third is the one to which the Minister has referred, the machinery set up by the Racing Board, which I understand is operating pretty well. With all these courses open to them and in the knowledge that this is not the last Gaming Bill to come before the House, and also in the knowledge that if, when it has been in operation for some time, there is a question of an injustice, the present Minister or some future Minister will approach the matter with sympathy, I think the matter should rest as it is.

I appreciate the fact that the points I have made have been accepted in good faith by the Government and I accept also the point of view put to me by the Taoiseach and the Minister. I would make two requests to the Taoiseach and I will withdraw the amendment if I get "yes" to either of them. Would the Minister say that he will receive a deputation representing the bookmakers with a view to getting the details of what they have in mind, so that at some future date the question of reinstating the Conyngham Club may be considered? The Taoiseach can take his own time in the matter.

Can you not put all you want to say in a memorandum which will be filed carefully in the Department of Justice, without having the Minister receiving a deputation for which he can do nothing?

I am seriously asking the Taoiseach to do this. The Department of Finance is responsible for the Racing Board, and not the Department of Justice.

I am not responsible for either of them.

I would like the Taoiseach to hear a deputation.

They did not ask me to receive them before the Bill and I am not going to do it now.

I know of my own knowledge that they would have liked to have seen you. The second request I have to make is this—will the Minister say that he will have the Racing Act re-examined and see whether he can put the Turf Board into the position of being able to deal with disputed matters which they cannot do at the moment? I understand that the opinion of the Department at first was that the Turf Board could deal with disputed matters.

I cannot give "yes" to either of the Deputy's questions. He should be satisfied with what I have said.

What has the Taoiseach said? He has not given any undertaking.

I have most carefully refrained from giving the Deputy any undertaking.

The Taoiseach has not given any promise yet. It is the same as in the case of the election promises. You cannot hold him to anything. I do not want to go away and say that the Taoiseach has given me an undertaking and then have the Taoiseach say that he did not do any such thing.

If you do, you are a much greater fool than I think you are, and I do not think you are a fool.

I am serious about this. Something will have to be done. The Taoiseach may not have quite as full a knowledge of racing as I have.

I am sure I have not.

I am dealing with the question of a man who runs a horse and wins off a bookmaker. He then loses and does not pay his debts, but he can still have bets laid on by a third person, say a person like myself, so that the black list means nothing. He can get another man to put on his bet with another bookmaker. That is the type of case I am referring to. If it is the case of trying to get money out of somebody's wife that she or her husband cannot afford, it is the kind of thing we do not want to have done. I am talking of people in the racing business and not the type of person Deputy McQuillan was referring to— some poor "gom" in Roscommon who spends half his lifetime drinking in a public-house and then is led out on to a racecourse and does not know what he is doing.

I was not referring to anything of the sort. You are wasting your time looking for this amendment. This House will have to decide that.

I agree. This House has to decide everything, but I am as much entitled to make a case for the people I represent as is any other Deputy. There is no monopoly in this House as to who can speak for whom.

Thanks be to God, I do not represent a lot of the gurriers that you represent.

I am afraid Deputy McQuillan is insulting a constituency that has very respectable people in it and I hope that a great number of them are people who vote for me.

When you withdraw what you said about mine I will withdraw what I said about yours.


Is that accepted?

Certainly. I can still talk about the innocent men.

There are innocent people in every constituency.

I am not concerned about them. I am talking of the fellow who is not innocent. I am talking of the very clever fellow who runs racehorses and, while running these racehorses, in cases that I know of, still will not pay a losing debt, notwithstanding that he is able to carry on in that way. There should be some means of dealing with that gentleman. Call him a gurrier if you like. That is the type of person that neither Deputy McQuillan nor I want to protect. I do not know that the Minister can give any undertaking about the Racing Act, but will the Taoiseach say that he will arrange for the Minister for Finance to re-examine the matter and give these people an opportunity of detailing what they have in mind?

I certainly will not.

There you are. All I can say is that we are doing a grave injustice. We are putting a premium on the activities of certain types of people. I do not want the thing to be misunderstood. To bring in the two extremes is no use. I am relating it to specific instances of which I have knowledge and I want the Minister to recognise that there should be some alternative suggestion. The Taoiseach says there will be more discussions in this House in due course on the Gaming and Lotteries Bill.

On a subsequent Gaming and Lotteries Bill.

There is a Bill to come in?

No. I said there probably will be one; that this is not the last one, probably, that will be dealt with in this House. I hope it is the last that I will have anything to do with.

If we find that in our combined wisdom in framing this one we have not covered all the loopholes that we want covered we will then have amending legislation or possibly a new Bill. That might not happen for years and some of us might not be here then. I am anxious to get just an expression that this matter will be reconsidered either by the Department of Justice or by the Department of Finance or both. I am quite satisfied that if there is sympathetic reconsideration a way will be found to meet the particular problem.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amend-No. 13 is consequential on amendment No. 12.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On sub-section (4) of that section, I want to raise a point.

The Deputy must speak to the question. We are not discussing the Report Stage.

I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will bear with me. On Committee Stage, when the Attorney-General was here, I raised the question of the word "stake" in that particular section, sub-section (4), and the Attorney-General promised that he would look at it to see whether or not the definition in Section 3 was in conflict, because I thought there was some inconsistency. Would the Taoiseach read the definition of "stake" at line 39, page 3 of the Bill? There is a definition on page 3, the last paragraph. I was referred to that by the Attorney-General. If the Taoiseach will then read sub-section (4), he will see that there would appear to be some inconsistency.

What section are you speaking about?

Section 35—the last word of sub-section (4). The Taoiseach would need to read the whole sub-section.

The draftsman is quite satisfied with the word.

I raise the matter because the Attorney-General promised that he would look at it. If he says that the draftsman is now satisfied, then I am satisfied.

That is what he says.

In regard to the 10/- limit on the lottery, may we take it that there is no hope of the Taoiseach or the Minister changing that and raising the ceiling? It was discussed in detail and several Deputies expressed the view that with a limit of 6d. on the bet, the winnings allowed should be over 10/- I think the feeling of the majority of the House is that the 10/- limit should be raised at least to £1.

The showmen have agreed to a 6d. stake and 10/- maximum prize money.

I know that the showmen have agreed on the 6d. but I am informed that there has been no decision by the showmen, as such, that they are satisfied with 10/- as the maximum winnings.

The information we received from the deputation of showmen is that they are quite satisfied. It is their suggestion that it should be 10/- and 6d.

The great thing was to keep down the number of people who might be tempted to try their luck. That is why we agreed. I personally thought, for that reason, that 10/- was right.

Question put and agreed to.