Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 21 Nov 1969

Vol. 242 No. 10

Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Moran)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of the Bill is to permit of the operation of slot-machines which do not pay out direct to the player but require the intervention of an attendant to enable the player to collect his prize. The Bill seeks to restore the position which obtained under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, until last year, when the Supreme Court, on a case stated, upheld the view of a district justice that the operation of machines of this kind was not in fact permissible.

Section 10 of the 1956 Act prohibits the operation of any slot-machine that is designed to deliver, when successfully operated, a money prize or a token or other article which the promoter is willing to exchange for money or money's worth or which may be used to enable the machine to be operated again. From the outset it was generally accepted that this prohibition did not apply to slot-machines which are modified in such a way that there is no delivery direct to the player, but only into a receptacle at the back to which the player has no access. On that basis, various amusement halls at seaside resorts and in urban centres had, over a period of twelve years from the passing of the Act, been receiving licences from the district court to operate these machines in conjunction with other forms of gaming and other forms of amusement.

In February, 1968, however, a district justice when renewing licences declined to accept this interpretation of the law and stated a consultative case to the High Court for the purpose of having the matter finally determined. The High Court decided that the district justice was correct and that the machines in question were prohibited by section 10. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld this decision.

When the Bill of the 1956 Act was being promoted it was foreseen that the prohibition on slot-machines provided for in section 10 might not apply if the machines were so adapted that there was no automatic pay-out to the player. The then Minister for Justice took the view that this did not matter —that the fundamental objection to these machines was that, because of the rapidity of turnover where there was automatic pay-out, the element of gambling was excessive, but that if the machines were so modified as to require the intervention of an attendant, there would be such a slowing-up of the whole process that this objection would largely disappear. Thus, the posibility of the adaptation of the machines was foreseen as something that could be accepted if it occurred, but it was not provided for in any positive way.

In the event, the machines were adapted on a wide scale and, with the sanction of district justices, have been in use throughout the country for twelve years. The proprietors of amusement halls have invested substantial sums of money in the purchase and adaptation of these machines during the period when their use was sanctioned by the district court and they have a very strong argument, based on established equities, for the restoration of the position as it obtained prior to the Supreme Court decision of 1968. In addition, the operation of these machines in amusement halls, particularly at seaside resorts, is an attraction for holidaymakers and benefits the tourist trade and experience has shown, I think, that it is an attraction which the law can safely permit to continue as complaints about abuses have been few and far between.

In preparing this Bill, I have taken the unusual course of providing a Long Title which effectively restricts the Bill to what is now contained in it. I have done this because, while it seems to me to be right and reasonable that we should make this change for the reasons that I have given, anything more than that would throw open the whole question both of gaming and lotteries. Examination of all the problems and questions that would then arise on the Bill would be a major task and one that would be bound to give rise to a great deal of controversy which, to say the least of it, would be certain to lead to a long delay in the enactment of this Bill. I think it is better to enact this measure which I hope we can all readily agree on rather than open up the wider questions on which, I may say, I myself have come to no firm conclusion as yet other than the conclusion that the problems, particularly in relation to lotteries — and, I might add, the wider field of fund-raising in general—are complex and far-reaching and their investigation must await another day. Accordingly, from a practical standpoint, the present Bill is the only one which I could sponsor at the present time.

With that, I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading. It is merely to deal with this High Court decision.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The object of this Bill, as the Minister has stated, is to amend section 10 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. It might be no harm to read subsection (1) of that section which is as follows:

No person shall operate or cause or permit to be operated or provide facilities for the operation of any slot-machine designed to deliver, when successfully operated, a money prize or a token or other article which the promoter or any person acting on his behalf undertakes or is willing to exchange for money or money's worth or which may be used to enable the machine to be operated again.

Between the coming into operation of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 and 1968, that section was interpreted to mean that, while it was illegal to operate a machine which delivered from the front or to a place accessible to the operator money or money's worth, it was legal to operate a machine which delivered prize money or money's worth to the rear to a place not accessible to the operator.

With the greatest respect to the learned courts who so interpreted that Act and to the other learned people who interpreted that section in that way between 1956 and 1968, I cannot understand how they could so interpret it because I think it became perfectlyclear, the moment this section became law, that the operating of a machine which delivered a prize, money or money's worth to the successful operator was prohibited. Be that as it may, it was interpreted between 1956 and 1968 to mean that it was legal to operate a machine which delivered a prize, money or money's worth to the rear on successful operation, or from a place that was not accessible to the operator.

As the Minister has said, last year the district court held that it was illegal to operate a machine which delivered a prize, money or money's worth, either from the front or the rear, shall we say. That decision was brought to the High Court and it went to the Supreme Court which upheld the district court ruling.

What the Minister proposes here is to restore section 10 of the Act to what was originally but erronously considered to be the meaning of the words the Minister proposes now— to permit the operation of a slot machine which on successful operation will deliver a prize from the rear to a place not accessible to the operator. Apparently an attendant at the back will hand the prize over to the successful operator. Let us consider for a moment the type of machine we are talking about.

The maximum prize that can be won is 10/- and the maximum amount that can be gambled at any one time is sixpence. I understand that in practice 90 per cent or more of the machines in this country are penny slot machines—they operate pennies not sixpences. Therefore, the amount of money that we are dealing with is comparatively small. The Minister has emphasised that the Long Title to the Bill prohibits a general discussion on gaming and lotteries, that it confines the discussion to the object of the Bill, which is the amendment of section 10 of the 1956 Act. I assume the Minister concedes that it is open to the House to have a full discussion on section 10 and that it is open to us to suggest an amendment to the Minister's amendment of section 10. Otherwise, the whole thing would be meaningless.

Mr. Moran

I accept that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister has also said that some time in the future he proposes to have a comprehensive review of the law relating to gaming and lotteries and that at the moment this is being considered. I think that pending that time the Minister should go a bit further here and permit the operation of machines which honestly and openly deliver the prize out of the front, because here we are really permitting the operating of these gaming machines but we are insisting that they be operated with the assistance of an attendant at the rear.

I understand that between the date of the district court decision and the present time there has been even more involved methods of operating the machines. Some machines did not deliver any prize at all but there was an attendant going around with a bag of coppers or sixpences and if two or three cherries—whichever group of whichever fruit qualified—came up the attendant delivered the prize out of the bag. However, when we permit this— I do not think there is any great abuse in it—we should permit the operation of the machines in the way they are operated elsewhere, that is, where they are permitted at all, by making it legal to operate machines which deliver the prize directly to the operator.

There is a certain number of objections to the method proposed in the Bill. It is, perhaps, a source of temptation to the machine attendants not to deliver the prize at all, especially if the operator might not realise he had won a prize. Strange as it may appear. that can happen quite frequently in cases of casual operators, of people coming to the seaside for the day or on their first access to such machines. Some of these machines pay on registering three fruit or three other objects. Others in some cases have mystery prizes, prizes which are not stereotyped. shall we say. There is no objection to it, I suppose. It could be regarded as a tourist attraction. Where these machines are permitted in England and elsewhere I understand the invariable practice is to deliver the small prizes directly to the operators.

I suggest to the Minister, especially as he has in mind a comprehensive review of the entire position in this respect, that pending such review he should permit delivery directly to the operator. He could do that by way of amendment which would simply state that subsection (1) of the relevant section does not apply to a premises or to a place for which a gaming certificate has been issued and is for the time being in force under section 15 of the Act. This would ensure that the machines could be operated only in places licensed under the Act. If there were any abuses in the interim period, objection could be made to the renewal of licences for these places.

Those are my views on it. I do not believe in outlawing something and then making it legal or half-legal, as I think we are doing here: we are frowning on the machines and then saying they may be operated in a certain way. I know the Minister's argument in favour of that is to break the continuity and give a person time, perhaps, to collect his thoughts but it is unlikely that he would have pounds of change in his pocket and if he was not winning he would have to break anyway to get change after speculating a small amount of money, whether pence or sixpences.

I suggest that the Minister should consider what I have said and that he might himself put down an amendment, something on the lines I have suggested, on the next Stage.

Mr. Pattison

I suppose it is not without good reason that these machines are known throughout the world as one-armed bandits and once people are conscious of this and take the risk and chance involved there is not much harm in it. I see no objection to the Bill and, in fact, I support the suggestion of Deputy Fitzpatrick that it should go a little farther. It is not really important what the machines do or how they are operated: the most important consideration is the environment in which they are operated. Once that is right and is controlled and licensed and capable of being scrupulously supervised I think we should go a little farther in this Bill because we still have a great need for—I shall not say tourist attractions since I do not think tourists will be attracted here or elsewhere by these machines which I suppose are available anywhere — entertainment when we have tourists here particularly in small seaside resorts on a wet day such as we get all too often in the summer months. We should have some form of recreation for them. Anybody who frequents seaside resorts realises that on a wet day the halls and arcades where these machines are available are very popular and if the environment is right I see no major objection to going even further than the Minister proposes to go in the Bill.

I take the opportunity to make the suggestion that local authorities in resort areas should be encouraged to build amusement arcades and provide these facilities so that whatever money is being made on them can be put back into development. The large amounts of money that must be made on these machines should be available to the people in the area to improve the area. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the suggestion that he should go a little farther on the lines suggested by Deputy Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Moran

There is one matter about which I am not quite clear and that is whether there can be any amendment on the lines suggested by Deputies because of the Long Title of the Bill. I had thought the House might agree to pass the Bill in all Stages in its present form today but if they are thinking of this type of amendment I could not expect them to do that.

The purpose of the Bill and the urgency of it is to restore the law to the position that everybody thought obtained until the decision of the Supreme Court. That was my reason for confining the Bill by its Long Title to that specific purpose. It was urged on me by those concerned in this business — I am thinking particularly of those in seaside areas who operate these machines—that it was essential to have this before the next tourist season. That is why I brought the Bill before the House in this form realising that if this Long Title was wider there would be little chance of getting anything urgent through in this field.

Irrespective of my view on the suggested amendment I should say that there are many people with different views on this business. I think very many people, for instance, took a poor view of Dublin Corporation for allowing many of these fun palaces in the main parts of the city. I am much more interested in providing for seaside places on wet days and I agree with Deputy Pattison that local authorities in these areas were asleep in not providing something of this kind which tourists expect and which is very useful, an innocent form of gaming on wet days.

This matter can be very different in large centres of population where there can be abuses and where very strict supervision is required. This Bill was drafted on the basis that it would deal solely with the High Court decision and merely put the law back where everybody thought it was in the period since the original Act was put through, say ten or 12 years ago. Certainly, without much further inquiry, I should hesitate to recommend to the House that we should go beyond this. The provision for a break, in the words of Deputy Fitzpatrick, before the payout to the operator when he wins was certainly thought by the then Minister to be a protection against compulsive gambling. No doubt you have compulsive addicts of the one-armed bandit just as you have compulsive bingo addicts.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): And horse racing.

Mr. Moran

Do not let anyone pose to me the analogy of someone going into a bookie's office and putting his life savings on a horse which has never ran before, because what we are dealing with here— even though mistakes are very limited—is the fact that some people can become addicted to this form of gambling. I would be much more concerned with the social aspect of this in areas of large population such as cities. I have no concern with this in seaside resorts. These places would be frequented in the main, if not solely, by tourists and by people wanting to while away a couple of hours in harmless amusement particularly, as I say, on a wet day.

The machines have been adapted, in the main, to pay out at the back to comply with the law as they understood it to be. The question of people not being sure of the prize they get and of young employees possibly doing some kind of fiddle at the back of the machine has been mentioned to me. The answer to that really is stricter enforcement and stricter conditions laid down in the amusement catering licences granted by the courts. From some information that has been conveyed to me I would certainly hesitate to allow the law to go further than it goes at this moment without a very full investigation.

This Bill restores the status quo to what it was before the High Court decision. I think this is as far as we should go at this point of time. The question of a comprehensive lottery Bill dealing with all kinds of things, such as street collections on which the law is very unsatisfactory, is another matter and would need inquiry and would need time and preparation. It would certainly take a large amount of the time of this House. At this point of time on my information, I would suggest to the House, as this Bill is designed to restore the legal position to what it was before the High Court decision to enable these people to carry on as they were before that decision, that this is the wise and the sensible thing to do.

I would ask the House to give me the Bill in this form. If Deputies feel that we should consider going even this little bit further and, particularly as the House agreed to take this Bill, I will have to agree to postpone the Committee Stage to satisfy the House. As far as I know — I am not certain about this — the Long Title of the Bill would prevent any form of amendment of the law other than what is set out in the Bill. I recommend the Bill to the House in this form at this time.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Next stage?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Would the Minister agree to consider between now and Committee Stage the suggestion which has been made, if he is advised that he can do it within the Long Title?

Mr. Moran

Naturally I will consider any suggestions that have been made but, in saying that I will consider them, that does not indicate, even if I could, that I am accepting the suggestions. If I dealt at length with these issues some Members of the House might not be prepared to accept this Bill either.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th November, 1969.