On this Bill, I might make a short statement. There was one amendment suggested both from the Fine Gael speaker and from the Labour Party speaker on the last occasion. I pointed out then to the House that I introduced this Bill solely for the purpose of restoring the law to what it was before the Supreme Court decision that made it illegal to operate these machines at all. Everybody thought that by the machines paying out at the back they were legal for the last 13 or 14 years and this decision upset all that.
In introducing this Bill to amend the law I emphasised to the House that it was solely for the purpose of restoring the position to what it was before this High Court decision. I also told the House that this device of having machines paying out at the back was put there by a previous Minister for Justice, for whose opinion I have great respect, because he was convinced that the fact of the machines not paying out directly in the front but paying out in the back slowed down the process of gaming and therefore was some form of protection to the compulsive gambler who might be addicted to this form of business. I must say that in my own mind I am not too sure of the logic of that particular argument and the view has been expressed that amending the Bill in the manner suggested would have the effect of doing away with this rule that these machines would have to pay out at the back. Other amendments have been suggested, one by a well-known solicitor who acts for a number of these amusement catering associations, but none appeals to me from a legal point of view because they would not do an effective legal job. If the House decides that it is desirable to have these machines pay out in front and, at the same time, to cater for machines which cannot be adapted for that purpose, the cleanest legal job would be to repeal section 10.
I did not have much time in which to consider this matter. I should like to make further inquiries. I should like to have the reaction of the Garda to this amendment. There are many people who do not want to have these amusement arcades at all; they are against them in principle. We are not dealing with them at the moment, but that will be another day's work when we come to discuss a major gaming measure.
It has been represented to me that young people employed in these arcades are open to the temptation to "fiddle". Whatever we do in this particular Bill, the same limits will apply —a maximum of 6d and a maximum prize of 10/-.
I put it to the House that we leave over the Report Stage until after Christmas. I should like to have time in which to get Garda reaction throughout the country. If I decide to leave the Bill unamended I will give the House an opportunity on the Report Stage of putting down amendments or of recommitting the Bill. I need time to consider the effect of the suggested amendments. As I say, the cleaner legal job would be to repeal section 10.
