The effect of this section is to increase excise duty chargeable on the issue of gaming licences under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 by £60 per year and by a proportionate amount where a licence is issued for a shorter period. The resulting increase in revenue would be approximately £3,500 in the current financial year.
Private Members' Business. - Finance Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question proposed: "That section 41 stand part of the Bill."
The increase in the licence fee by £60 per annum is an increase of 150 per cent which seems to be an inordinate amount. Subsection (i) of the section states that the section applies to gaming licences issued under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 and I should like to know if the various charitable pools which are controlled by this Act will be affected?
No, they are not involved. What we are dealing with here is gaming which is carried on in amusement halls and at fun fairs. The Deputy is talking about lotteries and not gaming.
Section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act states:
The Revenue Commissioners shall, on the application of a person to whom a certificate for a gaming licence has been granted and on payment by him of any excise duty provided for by law, issue to the applicant a licence in such form as they direct which shall be and be expressed to be subject to the conditions attached to the certificate.
I should like to know under what section of the 1956 Act the licences I have referred to are issued.
There is a very distinct difference between gaming and lottery. Gaming is defined as playing a game, whether of skill or chance or partly of skill and partly of chance, for stakes hazarded by the players. The Deputy is talking about lotteries which are distinct from gaming.
In my view the definition covers a lottery.
The definitions are contained in section 2 of the 1956 Act, part of which I have referred to. I have already given the definition of gaming and the definition of a lottery is:
"Lottery" includes all competitions for money or money's worth involving guesses or estimates of future events or of past events the results of which are not yet ascertained or not generally known;
These definitions are quite distinct and are in no way possible of confusion.
(Dublin Central): I cannot see any difference between playing one of the machines referred to by the Minister and playing bingo for a stake although the Minister feels there is a distinction.
We are dealing with amusement halls where machines are used, where the result is determined by the operation of the machine and not by any skill on the part of the players. There are those cases where people of exceptional skill might be able to ordain the outcome but that is not the primary factor.
(Dublin Central): A machine is used in the playing of bingo. The method used for arriving at a winner is through a machine.
That is completely incidental. Bingo is the modern version of an old game called housey-housey.
(Dublin Central): In deciding who will win a machine is used.
In the same way as words can be communicated by a typewriter instead of using a pen or a quill so a machine may be used in bingo but it is still essentially a lottery rather than gaming.
What about pongo?
I believe bingo is a modern version of pongo. I forget the difference between the two games but in the seaside resorts near Dublin halls now display the magic word "bingo" whereas in my boyhood days they displayed the magic word "pongo". In private family circles a game not dissimilar was played with cards and it was called housey-housey. The rules are fundamentally the same whatever sophistication may have been introduced in the meantime.
I should like to remind the Minister that pongo is advertised at seaside resorts. Would the Minister define housey-housey, pongo and bingo?
There are no statutory definitions of those activities and I rely upon the statutory definitions contained in the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 which has stood the test of years. Deputy Lalor posed the argument that there was some element in this amendment of the law which involved lotteries conducted for charitable purposes and I pointed out that the activity of gaming is quite distinct from that of lottery. I pointed out that a gaming licence is a licence under section 19 of the 1956 Act and that a lottery licence is issued under section 28 of the 1956 Act. We are dealing with gaming only.
Is the Minister saying that bingo falls into the category of lottery and not into the category of gaming?
Bingo is a competition for money and money's worth involving guesses or estimates of future events or of past events the results of which are not yet ascertained or not yet generally known. A person takes a card in anticipation that events shown on that card may occur and subsequently acts are conducted by some other party or parties which determine whether or not the events forecast on the card are fulfilled.
Is the machine used at that point in time?
The machine is incidental only to Bingo.
I am not clear whether or not the machine is incidental only. Is that the Minister's interpretation of it? Does the machine not play a very big part in determining the outcome and, as such, could it not be classified as a game rather than a lottery? I would accept an appliance such as the Sweepstakes drum being classified as a machine. It is twirled around to mix the tickets and eventually somebody dips a hand in and pulls out a raffle ticket. I wonder does a Bingo machine work on the same principle? I claim that if it is not worked on that principle it ought to be classified as gaming and not a lottery.
Quite frankly, I could not pretend to reach to those extremes of technology in this area nor do I think we are called upon to deal with such elements at this stage. If technology has advanced faster than the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 it has not thrown up any difficulties on that account. I am saying that the licences to which this section refers are those which are required under section 19 of the 1956 Act and such licences do not apply to lotteries.
We are back to the definition of what is a lottery and what is a game.
It is in the 1956 Act. I have quoted them.
The Minister quoted from the 1956 Act. Things have changed so much since then. From my point of view, looking greenly at subsection (1) without going into its detail, my reaction was that it would catch all those other games, Bingo and so on even if one extends it in the way Deputy Murphy has done to the drum turning over at the sweepstakes. Gaming Instrument is defined in the 1956 Act as:
any table or instrument of gaming and any coin, card, token or other article used as an instrument or means of gaming;
Listening to what Deputy Murphy has said, as I see it, the blow machine or one of those new developments as far as the chance selection of the ball for Bingo is concerned could come under the heading of a "gaming instrument". If in the course of the pursuance of lottery, one finds it necessary to use what could be defined, under the 1956 Act, as a "gaming instrument" difficulties could arise. I found myself the other day talking in terms of something being a Bill designed to protect the taxpayer against the Revenue Commissioners and creating a joke here. Therefore, I can only assume that if there is a loophole—usually it is the taxpayer but, in this case, it is the excise-duty payer who is caught out—it could transpire that some member of the Revenue Commissioners, looking at the 1975 Finance Bill, looking again at the Gaming and Lotteries Act of 1956, could decide some fine day that a simple lottery, where a licence is obtained from the superintendent in the normal course, came under the heading of section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act and that that type of licence would have to be obtained and paid for.
The Minister referred to the fact that here we have a game which with certain little additions has changed from "Housey, Housey" to Bingo. But other things have happened also in relation to the change-over which do involve the use of an instrument or machine which could be defined legally as a "gaming instrument" and make it necessary for this lottery to become leviable under section 41 of the 1975 Finance Bill.
What is this wonderful machine doing except replacing the human person who used to pick a ball out of a bag and throw it into a box in the centre of a circle which used to be divided, in turn, into a whole lot of small sections which were numbered differently; in other words, whatever would be the process by which numbers were selected for playing of Bingo the fundamental rules which determine the outcome have not changed as between 1956 and 1975. I say, with respect, all that we have power to do in this Bill is to change the duty imposed by the Finance Act, 1956. Indeed, it could almost be said that we need not have made reference, in section 41, to the Gaming and Lotteries Act of 1956 because section 17 of the Finance Act, 1956 is the section of the law now being amended. If there is any room for doubt or argument, such as suggested by Deputies opposite, then that is a matter for the gaming and lotteries legislation and for the Minister for Justice. I am not passing the buck but I am saying that if any questions of doubt have arisen, then the appropriate Department to deal with the matter is the Department of Justice. This section seeks to extend the application of the duty imposed by section 17 of the Finance Act, 1956 beyond those instruments to which, until now, it has always been deemed to apply.
The Minister may say, and presumably he is correct in so doing, that this falls within the ambit of another Department and another Minister. Nevertheless, we must examine the situation and be extremely cautious lest, unwittingly, we bring about some form of development which would change the basic terms of the situation. The Minister mentioned the machine used in relation to Bingo and said that that machine simply took the place of the human hand, as it were, that perhaps it was a sophisticated type of machine. I wonder at what stage can it be determined that such machine has become a "gaming instrument" within the strict interpretation of the law. That is the point that worries me. I feel that, perhaps, the Minister made light of the situation in referring to the change-over from the personal touch to a machine. I can remember, as the Minister might well do, at fairs and amusement arcades, the "roll a penny" business, where one took the chute and rolled a penny down along it. If one were lucky enough, one managed to get that penny standing on a space marked twopence or threepence.
The Chair wants to intervene to point out that if the question arises under another Ministry, then it is not one to be debated on this section. If it is a question of whether it is a game or a lottery, it falls to be dealt with by the Department of Justice. This section increases the amount of duty.
In bingo a gaming machine is used to collect and to pay out.
We are not dealing with that matter in the section. We are not dealing with definitions but we are dealing with the question of increasing duty.
(Dublin Central): Is it not important that we get a proper definition at this time?
It is under an Act that is the province of another Minister. Clarification should not be sought on this discussion.
I do not wish to enter into a controversy with the Chair but I am afraid that in the development to more highly sophisticated systems where machines are used we may have moved from what could be termed a lottery to gaming. This is why we are anxious to have a clear definition. If the first principles were established we would be able to proceed.
The Deputy will appreciate that the section deals with an increase in duty.
It is the task of the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners to collect revenue for the State and if they see here the prospect of availability of revenue they may also look forward towards adjacent sources of revenue. I should like to see clear definitions made here. I should like the Minister to define "machine" specifically. Is the machine used in bingo regarded as a gaming machine or as a lottery?
The interpretation of a lottery or gaming is decided under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, which is administered by the Minister for Justice. It is outside the scope of this Bill.
(Dublin Central): Surely we are entitled to know what is being increased. The Chair has told us the Minister for Finance is not in a position to give a definition. All of us know how many cases have gone to the High Court and the Supreme Court because of the question of definition. We are trying to find out what machines these increases will apply to and that is what Deputies Lalor and Murphy have been trying to ascertain for the last 20 minutes. We believe that they could be extended to the machine used in bingo and we are trying to clarify the position. The definition in any Bill is important and the Chair is more aware than most Deputies that if there is any ambiguity there may be repercussions afterwards. It has frequently happened that a different definition is given to legislation by the various Departments who may implement it. The Chair has pointed out that it is a matter for the Minister for Justice but in this case the Minister for Finance is increasing the duty on the machines and we are trying to ascertain the extent.
The Chair is agreed in regard to what is happening on the section. The Chair is saying that the determination of a lottery or a game is decided under the Gaming and Lotteries Act which is administered by the Minister for Justice and, therefore, is outside the scope of this Bill.
May I point out we are not dealing with machines in this section? We are dealing with licences for places where gaming will take place. Nothing being done now in any way changes the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. If those definitions are inaccurate to deal with modern circumstances so be it, but this legislation does not, and cannot, amend that Act. We are dealing with the Finance Bill but if the Deputies opposite are anxious not to see this section or any gaming licence, as distinct from a lottery licence, apply to bingo I would urge them not to argue as they are doing. If there is merit in their argument, all they will do is to stimulate the grey matter of the Revenue Commissioners——
That does not need stimulating. The Minister may under-estimate them but neither I nor any other taxpayer underestimates the capacity and the capability of the Revenue Commissioners to collect money. They are fully alive to every situation.
I share the Deputy's high regard of the Revenue Commissioners. We are only increasing a duty that exists for the area where the duty is relevant. The Deputies opposite are now suggesting that modern technology has brought certain "sports"—I put that word in quotes —within the ambit of gaming rather than lottery. As the Chair has pointed out, that matter is not being discussed at this stage and we cannot deal with it in this legislation.
(Dublin Central): In case there should be any misunderstanding for my reason in mentioning the game of bingo, I would point out it was in case the Revenue Commissioners should try to impose a duty on that game at any time. I am well aware of the vast amount of money being collected for charity at the bingo sessions. Schools and community centres have been built on the proceeds of the game and I wanted to be sure this section would not include the apparatus used in bingo. The Minister for Finance seems to be under the impression that we want to include bingo but our intention is the opposite; we want to ensure the Revenue Commissioners will not tax that game in the future. That is the reason we mentioned the machine used at bingo.
I should like to clarify my position. In common with Deputy Fitzpatrick, I appreciate what has been done by voluntary groups towards the provision of community facilities and I realise that much of the money has come from bingo sessions. Far be it from me to suggest the Revenue Commissioners might include bingo in the gaming category. I know there are pros and cons about bingo but I like to think the good derived from the game outweighs the evils, even though the evils are many.
We are not arguing the pros and cons of bingo. We must come back to the section now.
Section 41 applies to gaming licences issued under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this need not have been in the legislation but these one and three-quarter lines are there and, therefore, we must have a full examination of what is involved or implied.
We cannot discuss on this section anything beyond the question of the tax. We are not dealing with the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956.
We are dealing with gaming licences issued under this Act.
This is the province of another Minister.
This applies to gaming licences issued under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956.
The Deputy knows that what we are dealing with is the imposition of a rate of tax.
But this Act is mentioned in the Bill.
That does not entitle a Deputy to discuss an Act which is the province of another Minister.
The Minister should have gone to his colleague in order to clarify what will be affected by this. We should not have to ask questions which are relevant to be addressed to another Minister.
What is involved in the section is an imposition of tax.
We want to find out what the tax is on. The Minister should have clarified all this with his colleague.
I have told Deputies but they never listen to me.
The Minister tried to suggest that we might be recommending a tax on bingo machines. We are definitely not doing that. We want to know exactly what are these appliances, these pieces of equipment, for which gaming licences are required and on which this legislation is going to increase the duty.
We are dealing here with premises in which gaming is conducted, not with machines at all.
Will the Minister define the word "premises"?
The section deals with an increase in tax. The Deputy can argue on that.
I have reached the stage where, Sir, through your courtesy, your lenience and tolerance, for which you are noted, I have got the Minister to use the word "premises". If this legislation is passed we will increase the tax on a premises and I am asking the Minister to define the word "premises". "Premises" might be the key word but what would be within the premises might determine whether a licence would be required. The definition of "premises" is important.
The Chair is in the position that we have a section of a Bill in which it is proposed to increase taxation by a certain amount. The Chair is trying to confine the debate to that section.
I appreciate your position and I accept your judgment but I am trying to narrow the field and I believe I have reached an important point. I would like to know the Minister's definition of "premises". I believe it is not so much the premises that is important as what is contained therein. This does not refer to any premises; it must be a premises with certain equipment and I am not sure what that equipment is. Whether a gaming licence duty would have to be paid would depend on the equipment. In other words, what is a gaming machine? I would still like the Minister to define "premises".
Whether in the case of the Minister or a Deputy, the Chair must confine the debate to the section and the Chair wonders whether everybody is not anticipating other sections of the Bill.
The Chair's last comment seemed rather apt. It is impossible to deal with section 41 without taking into consideration section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 and what that involves. It is in this section. The Minister referred to it and indeed quoted definitions from the Gaming and Lotteries Act. The Minister has told us that what we are talking about here is a premises. There is a definition of "premises" in the next section but there is no reference to the word in subsection (2) of this section. The reference here is to gaming licences and refers to a duty imposed by section 17 of the Finance Act, 1956 on gaming licences. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you have drawn attention to the fact that what we are talking about is duty. What is being amended here is section 17 of the 1956 Act from which I quote:
There shall be charged, levied and paid for and upon every gaming licence issued under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 (No. 2 of 1956), an excise duty at the following rates, that is to say:—...
and this is where the quotation is exactly the same.
... where the period for which the licence is to be issued, as specified in the certificate under the said Act authorising the issue of the licence—
(a) does not exceed three months, ten pounds;
(b) exceeds three months but does not exceed six months, twenty pounds;
(c) exceeds six months but does not exceed nine months, thirty pounds;
(d) exceeds nine months, forty pounds.
We are talking here of an increase of 150 per cent in excise duty but nowhere in section 41 of this Bill nor in section 17 of the Finance Act, 1956, nor in section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 is there reference to "premises". Can the Minister say whether the gaming licence we are talking about in this section is one applied for by an individual, by a group or by a company or whether it is a licence dealing with a premises?
We find in section 42 that "premises" is defined as an amusement hall or a fun fair. Why should the Minister continue to insist that what we are talking about in this section is "premises"?
This debate would be interminable if it amounted to the seeking of information from the Deputies opposite in regard to the Gaming and Lotteries law. This law is specified in the Act of 1956.
The Minister has not done his homework.
The Minister has done his homework. I might tell the Deputies opposite that I know more about the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 than is known by any of the Deputies in the House now because at that time I had the privilege of working as a civil servant in the Department of Justice. Consequently, I know the Bill very well.
Help us in our darkness.
The Minister.
In this Bill we are not changing one iota of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. Apparently, the Deputies do not understand the ramifications of a Finance Act. I have said to them that a Finance Act could not purport to interfere with the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. We are dealing with taxation matters here and the amendment we are making is to the Finance Act, 1956. If the Deputies had done their homework, they would have found that section 14 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 says that gaming carried on at an amusement hall or fun fair shall not be unlawful gaming if carried on in accordance with a licence while section 15 of the same Act says that a district court may grant a certificate authorising the issue of such licence. These two section are related to section 19 which deals with the issue of a licence. We are seeking to amend here the Finance Act, 1956 which stated what was the duty to be paid on gaming licences. That is all we have power to do. Consequently, all the talk that has been indulged in since 7.30 p.m. has nothing to do with the only thing this Bill can do, that is, to change the rates of duty.
Therefore, why could the Minister not have brought in section 41 as an amendment to section 17 of the Finance Act, 1956, leaving out the reference to the Gaming and Lotteries Act?
The Deputy is right in saying that but the parliamentary draftsman, in his wisdom, thought the reference might guide people in their reading of the Bill but, strictly speaking, it is unnecessary. Because of the confusion it appears to have generated here, I shall give thought to its deletion on Report Stage. It does not add in any way to what subsection (2) seeks to achieve.
Is it proposed, then, to delete the reference between now and Report Stage? Arising from, according to the Minister, an unwarranted interpretation on my part, the Minister has been prompted to decide that this was a new way of looking at the Gaming and Lotteries Act. He went so far as to say that he might recommend the Revenue Commissioners to consider a new interpretation of gaming from their point of view.
I compliment the Deputies on a certain line of argument which they were advancing with great skill but I could not understand their reason for such argument.
After allowing us to be obstructive, it transpires that the reference should not have been in the Bill.
The Deputies misled themselves by not understanding the law but if they prefer legislation which would throw on them the onus of tracing the law, I expect legislation could be introduced in that way.
What we would like is legislation that is not confused.
Apparently, the result of trying to help the Deputies is only to confuse them further.
The Minister has told us that he carried out the background research for this Bill and he treated us to a mention of a brief interlude in his illustrious career. He suggested that we had not done our background work but, as a result of Deputy Lalor's questioning and reasoning, we find that the reference in question ought not to have been included and the Minister has told us that he will consider its deletion at a later stage. In the course of our examination of the Bill we could not see where this reference fitted in and we were afraid that the Minister was inserting it with foresight. Now we find he was not cunning, using that in the strict sense of the word. It is irrelevant to the Bill. We on this side of the House have got this admission from the Minister. We may have saved expense and time on the interpretation of what was involved with regard to gaming licences under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956.
The Chair has told the Deputy and other Deputies on several occasions that what is involved in this section is increasing a rate of duty.
We agree. The Minister referred to the fact that we have been here since 7.30 p.m. but we have done a good job——
In self-education.
We have discovered that subsection (1) of section 41 is not necessary. There is no point in the Minister blaming us. If that were not in the Bill, we would not have utilised 52 minutes of the precious time of this House. We discovered that by teasing it out.
If the Deputy goes on like that I will leave the subsection in.
Why does the Minister not? Why threaten the Opposition?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Murphy.
If the Opposition want to mislead themselves that is their business. I try to help them and all I get is abuse.
The Minister is legislating in pique.
If it is necessary to educate the Opposition I will leave it in.
Why is it there in the first place?
To educate the Opposition.
The Minister tells us one minute that he will take it out and now he says he will leave it in.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.
We examined section 41 (1) and we wondered what its relevance was to the Finance Bill, 1975. We teased out the section with the Minister and he said he would bring in an amendment to withdraw it. Now he says he will leave it in. If that is his final decision, will he tell us for what reason is he leaving it in?
This section deals with tax.
Is this taxation? Has it to do with the raising of revenue? There is no point in the Minister saying he will leave it in when a few minutes earlier he said it was not relevant. How does section 41 (1) concern taxation? How is it involved with the raising of revenue? What is the function of this subsection? I hope the Minister will answer that question.
A Cheann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle pointed out to me that he had to confine the terms of the debate to finance. We wish to facilitate the Chair in every way but we are in a dilemma. We want to know why the Minister included this subsection in the Bill. Prior to your arrival, a Cheann Comhairle, the Minister said it was not necessary and that it was probably background information for guidance of this side of the House. After we teased it out we found there was no need for it. The Minister said that if it was upsetting and worrying us he would consider bringing in an amendment at a later stage to delete it. After a minute or two the Minister said that if it is still causing us anxiety he will leave it in the Bill.
We want to know what is the real significance of the subsection. Are there any grounds for the fears we expressed when we opened the debate on this section of the Bill? When we examined the Bill we could not see the significance of this subsection. The Minister should make a decision on his own legislation. Will he state that he will bring in an amendment to delete section 41 (1) from this Bill? If the Minister can satisfy this side of the House on that point, we may be able to continue with the remaining sections. I hope a ready answer will be forthcoming from the Minister.
I shall give the most careful and earnest consideration to all that has been said and come to an appropriate conclusion and I hope I will express that conclusion in a parliamentary form.
We set out to establish one of two things in connection with this section. If the Minister wants our continued co-operation, I suggest very seriously that he change his attitude. He is indicating here that our questions are raised with a view to obstruction and delaying tactics. I know the Minister's problem in relation to time and he will have a heck of a problem unless he improves his approach. I asked what was the significance of subsection (1) of section 41.
The Deputy did not, you know.
I teased it out. I indicated that the reference to gaming and lotteries could introduce an element which would have the effect of games like bingo being treated under a different section. The Minister said that was not the intention and, in order to establish the bona fides of the non-intention, he said he proposed to have a look at it with a view to withdrawing it. I fully accept that. If, however, the Minister continues the attitude he seems to be adopting now he will get anything but the support he has been getting from this side of the House.
I was wondering if the Minister could give any better assurance. I thought some time ago he gave a decision in which he committed himself to deleting this. Now he seems to be covering his tracks somewhat; he says he will give consideration to what has been said. That is not the same as saying he will see that this section is deleted. I ask the Minister to give a definite "Yes" as he did some 15 or 20 minutes ago.
I cannot add anything to what I have already said.
Is the section agreed?
Subject to the commitment.
To consider.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No.22:
In page 22, line 15, after "play" to insert "and a machine in respect of which the player pays a sum not exceeding 1p to play the machine whether by the insertion of a coin or token or in some other way and which, when played by a player once and successfully, entitles that player to a prize not exceeding 5p in value".
This amendment arises in connection with the definition of a machine as a gaming machine. A machine which pays a dividend of five pence to one penny is so innocuous that it would never be used by somebody of a gambling mentality; it would be used rather by someone looking for shelter at a seaside resort or in some other amusement centre or by someone who wants to punch in an hour or two. The definition specifies:
... a machine which, when played by a player once and successfully,
affords that player no more than an opportunity to play again (once or more often) without paying to play shall be deemed not to be a gaming machine.
The kind of machine covered by the amendment is not such as to be a temptation to a gambler.
The effect of the amendment would be to exempt from licence duty gaming machines in respect of which the maximum stake to play is one penny and the maximum prize a player can win is five pence, or its equivalent in value. The definition of gaming machines is contained in subsection (2) (a) and is so framed as to exclude a considerable number of machines designed wholly or primarily for amusement. It excludes, for instance, machines which can play successfully and earn the player nothing more than the right to play the same machine again, once or more often, and machines which are so designed that the outcome of the game is not determined by the action of the machine regardless of whether it incorporates a device the player can manipulate to try to enhance his chance of winning a prize. A large proportion of the machines the Deputy seeks to exclude would, therefore, be excluded by that definition, depending on the outcome of the game and partly and wholly on the skill of the player and not wholly or partly on the action of the machine. I am told that examples of such machines are the "pusher" machine or "penny drop" where the skilful position of the coin or token mechanically operated sweeping ram of the machine would cause one or more coins to drop off a ledge into a pay-out shoot. Acceptance of the amendment would lead to very serious difficulties of control in order to establish the validity of the proprietor's claim that machines have a maximum stake of one penny and a prize of five pence and it would be necessary for the control officer to play each such machine and play it until such time as he wins a prize. The machine may be labelled as a penny machine but habitués could reasonably know otherwise. Furthermore, the existence of an exemption in the terms of the amendment would encourage a gradual swing to penny machines in which the odds against winning could be radically loaded against the operator and in favour of the proprietor with an inevitable erosion of the basis of the duty.
Subsection (2) (a) (ii) provides:
the player pays to play the machine whether by the insertion of a coin or token or in some other way, and
Clause (iii) provides:
the outcome of the game is determined by the action of the machine, whether or not provision is made for manipulation of the machine by the player.
The outcome of the game is determined by the action of the machine whether or not provision is made for the manipulation of it by the player. The Minister brings in only one exemption that is that the prize for a person who plays this machine and is successful is simply a free game. Is this sufficient inducement to a person playing those machines? We feel we have struck the correct balance. We wish to have exempted the machine which accepts a small stake, the second smallest currency denomination which we have, a 1p, where the successful person could accumulate 5p, that is a gain of 4p.
A lot of people play those machines for pleasure. The better class amusement arcades in my constituency of Wicklow at weekends, and even at mid-week during the holiday season, are crowded with people who come to them. They are not gambling arcades. They are amusement arcades. A proprietor who wants to acquire a licence must have a number of amusements, such as the ghost train and the dodgems, which involve a lot of capital and are classified as amusements. A machine covered by the amendment in the name of Deputy Colley would be better classified as an amusement than as gaming. The stake does not exceed 1p and the maximum prize, a return of 5p gives a gain of 4p, which could not be classified as a one armed bandit. We must distinguish between those machines, which give enjoyment to people, and those which are used for gambling.
The people who use the machines I refer to will probably gain a few pence and they know the maximum amount they are willing to pay out. They regard those machines as a pastime. It is the function of the House to look after the recreational pastimes of the people and not to clamp down on them entirely. It may take four games of the machine for a person to win 5p. He then plays on for a further number of games. Those machines are far different from the one armed bandit machines into which a capital sum is inserted. The win gained in those machines can become the stake at various odds. If the person wins £2.50p that sum can then become the stake for another attempt at the machine at odds of three or four to one. This, by its snowballing effect is gambling. This without question is a one armed bandit. There is no comparison between it and the gaming machine which this side of the House wish to see excluded from duty.
Many people on fine afternoons prefer to go to amusement arcades, where there are those machines with small stakes, rather than go to the films or race tracks. They bring their families with them and like to spend their few coppers in their own way. They know they will not get rich and on the law of averages they will lose out but in the course of playing the machine five or six times they will see the machine give back to them 4p or 5p, which they will continue to insert. This will build up until their few coppers have dwindled away and they go back with another 5p and obtain a few more pence. At the same time their children have the opportunity of making use of the dodgems, ghost trains and the roundabouts. I have been informed that in order to comply with the terms of the licence it is necessary to have a certain number of these machines in the amusement arcades. Even though the Minister has put forward plausible reasons why our amendment should not be included, he ought to take cognisance of the fact that many families spend afternoons in the summer at such arcades. They are not there for the purpose of making money. They are out to enjoy themselves. Why deprive them of that enjoyment? If these machines are not included, the proprietors of such amusement arcades will have them removed from the premises and in so doing will curtail the enjoyment of many people.
Many people enjoy themselves at the amusement arcades in Bray. There is not a great deal of cash involved and the people who play the machines are not concerned about winning. If they were interested in gambling, they would be in attendance at the gambling saloons, premises I do not approve of but which I know exist. The one armed bandits with the maximum jackpots are bad and they do not give enjoyment to anybody. I sympathise with those who play these machines solely for the purpose of trying to beat the system and I look forward to the day when we can have good legislation to cater for such forms of gambling. I look forward to the day when we can extend good community care facilities to those who are addicted to this kind of gambling. However, we should not have the one armed bandits classified in the same bracket as the penny machines which return a mere 4p to the player if he wins. The Minister has come up with technical reasons why he cannot accept our amendment but a little humanity should prevail.
There are other ways open to the Minister to check such establishments. For instance he could introduce a system of spot checks. One way of coping with the problem of the one armed bandits would be to impose heavy duty on those machines. The machine that gives a small profit and in so doing gives pleasure to holiday-makers should be exempt from such duty. Subsection (2) of this section states:
A machine is a gaming machine if—
(i) it is constructed or adapted for gaming, and
(ii) the player pays to play the machine whether by the insertion of a coin or token or in some other way, and
(iii) the outcome of the game is determined by the action of the machine, whether or not provision is made for manipulation of the machine by the player,
but a machine which, when played by a player once and successfully, affords that player no more than an opportunity to play again (once or more often) without paying to play shall be deemed not to be a gaming machine.
Deputy Colley's amendment is:
After "play" to insert "and a machine in respect of which the player pays a sum not exceeding 1p to play the machine whether by the insertion of a coin or token or in some other way and which, when played by a player once and successfully, entitles that player to a prize not exceeding 5p in value."
It is a reasonable amendment and I would ask the Minister to give further thought to its acceptance.
The trap into which the Minister is falling in relation to this part of section 42 is that he cannot distinguish between gaming or gambling and amusement. What the Opposition spokesman on Finance is attempting to do is to preserve the element of amusement. The previous speaker, Deputy Murphy is concerned, in that in his constituency there are a number of tourist areas in which that type of operation is conducted, for instance, in Bray, Arklow or other areas to which many Dublin people commute on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. I have been often in the Bray area and, from time to time, have gone into what could be described as amusement arcades rather than gambling casinos.
Obviously Deputy Colley's amendment is unacceptable to the Minister who read out his reasons for non-acceptance rather than articulate his own views in his usual angry fashion. We ask the Minister to accept the amendment, bearing in mind at all times that if we must have slot machines, and obviously they are in existence, there is absolutely no reason why, as in the case of other games coming under the Gaming and Lotteries Act of 1956, they should not be subject to some form of taxation. But what the Minister is doing here is introducing a penal tax on to what can be described only as machines which give amusement. As we have said, these are not gambling machines in the accepted sense of the word "gambling". For instance, there are organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous. Certainly any member of that organisation who, having joined breaks away and takes up gambling again, will not go to an amusement arcade in, say, Bray or any other part of the country to amuse himself or gamble. Quite the contrary. What that man wants is the hope of a very large stake, the opportunity to play for a large prize. Like alcoholism gambling is an illness or disease. I do not think we in this House should engage in any form of moral strictures with regard to the disease of gambling. Organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous do their best for such individuals who cannot contain themselves in the context of gambling. If we, on this side of the House felt the amendment we propose did anything to exacerbate the gambler who cannot contain himself, or if we saw anything in this section which would increase the anxiety of such individuals, then we would not oppose the section or indeed, introduce such an amendment, which is a reasoned one.
The outlay involved is a penny, which is the second lowest denomination in our currency today. I do not see much evidence of the halfpenny. Consequently, the penny can be taken as a real basic currency. It is not a very glamorous coin. As a matter of fact, aesthetically, it is a hopeless production and becomes more hopeless in its purchasing power under the Government with inflation and so on. Therefore, why not let us use the penny for these amusement machines? Is that not as good a usage for the penny as any other? Even the penny lollipop would cost 1½p under this Government.
We ask the Minister to distinguish between gambling and amusement. I am sure the Minister knows of individual families who commute to these amusement arcades. They are not gambling casinos. If we thought the really big time gambling casino was being helped by this amendment then certainly we would not have suggested it. If it is not the wish of the Government to abolish slot machines we ask the Minister to look upon them, in arcades run by decent people, people who have been in the business of amusement arcades for generations, as machines providing amusement. Such families have engaged in that form of service to the public and are entitled, we believe, to a modest profit in a free enterprise society. They are reputable people. We have received memoranda from a number of organisations, not the least of which has been one from the Amusement Caterers' Association of Ireland. Government Deputies received the memorandum as did we on this side of the House. That association are entitled to lobby Deputies. If Deputies accept their views, then they are entitled to articulate them on behalf of those people. Within that Association there are some 100 amusement caterers. Now that they see people becoming less and less interested in their form of business, with a consequential diminishing return, they see fit to make representation. If it is the intention of the Minister to put such people out of business altogether, then he should say so. If it is not his intention so to do, but to see them as amusement caterers rather than real gamblers, then he should accept Deputy Colley's reasoned amendment.
When the Minister was giving reasons to the House for his rejection of this amendment, he said the principal objection was that it would be unworkable. It is a curious thing that whenever a tax collector or a customs and excise officer is collecting money putting trouble on a member of the public is the least of his worries. It does not matter how much difficulty, trouble, worry or delay he exercises on the long-suffering public, but if he is asked to do work that might put him to some inconvenience he has the Minister for Finance to stand up in his defence and tell the House the proposal is unworkable. It is a ridiculous proposition and is a lame excuse for rejecting this amendment which could be made to work.
Where people run amusement arcades in seaside resorts and in holiday camps, in their application a distinction could be made between machines used for gambling and for amusement purposes. If this section goes through, the owner or operator of the amusement and/or gambling premises will have to pay a substantial amount. He will have to pay £50 a year to operate a machine used for amusement only. It would be quite easy to work out a system whereby a certain number of machines in the licensed premises could be designated as amusement rather than gaming machines and these could be open for examination by the customs and excise at any time. In other words, the applicant could state that a certain number of the machines were for amusement purposes and that the balance were gaming machines within the meaning of the Act. If at any time the customs and excise inspector discovered the person contravened the terms of the licence, he could be open to the fines that are laid down in this Bill and in existing legislation.
It does not appear a valid point against the merits or otherwise of this amendment to say it is unworkable because of difficulty in operation on the part of the Revenue Commissioners. We hear this kind of remark too often but there is little mention about the difficulties of the citizen when he is put upon by the customs and excise officer or the tax collector. As it will cost the owner or operator an enormous amount to operate any kind of machine, consideration should be given to the suggestions made from this side of the House that a distinction can and should be made between the two types of machines.
I am not saying or implying that amusement machines should be completely exempt from duty. I am suggesting, if this distinction is made, that the duty payable in respect of amusement machines should not be more than 25 per cent of the duty payable in respect of gaming machines. It would be easy to operate a quota system and, in view of the fact that the premises would be liable to inspection at any time, contravention of such a quota system would be easily detected. It would be so easily detected that it would not represent a reasonable gamble on the part of the owner or operator of the amusement arcade.
We are not suggesting that there should be separate premises set aside for the machines. If we did so, it might create some difficulties. I am not an expert on these matters but I am told the machines are in the one premises, as described in the Bill and in the existing Act. Therefore, all that would be required is that a distinction be made for the purpose of this amendment and that the penalties would be such as to render it silly and stupid on the part of the operator or the owner to try to contravene the section.
The weight of representations made in relation to these sections of the Bill did not seek a total exemption of any one-armed bandits. Rather did they seek to exclude from the provisions of the Bill machines that were not primarily gaming machines. We have met certain representations by amendment No.23 in respect of broken or out-of-use machines.
It would be possible but most undesirable to allow any exemption for any one-armed bandits. The picture of a nice family whiling away an occasional five minutes at weekends working those machines is not the full picture. It is not uncommon to see people playing two, three or even more machines at the one time, moving up and down the row and putting in pennies as fast as their feet and their hands allow them. The idea of a family staking 5p and getting 4p return is not the normal picture.
The truth is that we are not concerned with any puritanical principle in our approach to this Bill. We are concerned with taxing less essential needs in order to transfer the proceeds to pressing economic and social needs. I do not think it is wrong that an activity of this kind should be asked to contribute a small share of the profits made on such machines to essential social and economic purposes. There is no question here of stamping out the playing of gaming machines in amusement arcades for small stakes. The question of whether that is a lawful pursuit is a matter for the Minister for Justice, for dealing with under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, and if there is any question of either stopping that activity altogether or of increasing the stakes, then it is a matter that falls for consideration by the Minister for Justice.
We are concerned in the Finance Bill with imposing taxes on different consumptions, different activities, and when we were looking at a range of activities which are less than essential this was one which very properly came up for consideration. In effect, what we are taxing is the profit made by the proprietors of the machines or by the people on whose premises the machines are operated. It is taking, through the imposition of a duty per machine, a share of the profits. Rather than leaving to uncertain collection by means of income tax a proportion of the profits we are applying here a law which is in general operation in other countries where it is considered insufficient to tax merely amusement halls and fun fairs and where it is considered proper that machines themselves should have a specific tax attached to them. It is desirable that the State should know the number of gaming machines in operation. It is desirable that the State should have a record of the locations of those machines and should be able to police them. Mere licensing of premises does not give an adequate account of the number of machines in use. If the machines themselves have to be licensed, then a proper record can be kept of the number and location of machines.
To exclude any one-armed bandits from the ambit of the Bill could lead to a situation in which all one-armed bandits would be operated with a stake of 1 penny and they could become very sophisticated machines operating with very great rapidity so if there is to be a measure of public protection as an objective it seems to me that that objective cannot be met at all unless all one-armed bandits are brought within the scope of the duty.
We received the representations of the Amusement Caterers for whom I have the highest regard knowing many of them for many years personally. I think we have met their objections substantially by originally excluding those machines on which there is a considerable element of skill or what I might call honest enjoyment on the part of the operator rather than satisfaction of the gambling instinct and we have a further amendment which would not charge to duty machines which are out of order, provided steps are taken to——
Big deal. Well done. It was a disgraceful provision in the first instance. The Minister will not get much credit for that.
I would suggest that Deputy Andrews would refrain from engaging——
Let us have orderly debate, please. Deputy Andrews will have his opportunity.
The Minister has shown his prejudice by referring to the machines as one-armed bandits.
The Deputy's own party for decades taxed radios and pieces of radios which were not capable of giving as much——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Andrews must desist from interrupting. We must have orderly debate. The Deputy will be afforded every opportunity of making his contribution but it must be done in an orderly fashion.
The Minister is a human one-armed bandit.
The Minister's prejudice is demonstrated by his description of the machines as one-armed bandits.
On a point of order, the Minister is outnumbered ten to one and, in fairness to him, we should try to get a few people in on his side to give him some backing.
I take it the Deputy is calling for a quorum.
It is not a point of order.
A quorum must be on a point of order.
(Interruptions.)
Will the discussion please cease?
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I have stated the position very explicitly. I have given very cogent reasons why the amendment should not be accepted. I have shown that the purpose of the legislation is to impose a very small tax on profits earned from machines which are operated as a pastime for non-essential purposes in order that the revenue obtained from such activity can be used to meet pressing economic and social needs. There would be a serious erosion of that objective if the amendment were to be accepted and I would consider that to be wrong.
It has been indicated from this side that there is an imbalance here in so far as the Minister proposes to tax all gaming machines at the same rate. It struck me when Deputy S. Flanagan was speaking that it was rather significant that the Minister is proposing to amend the Finance Act, 1956 and increase the excise duty on all those machines by 150 that we are opposed to increasing this per cent. Nowhere have we indicated excise duty.
We consider the increase in tax to be about twice what it should be. In relation to what we have been endeavouring to define as a gaming machine, the tax should not be as heavy as is proposed and in relation to the smaller type machine referred to in the amendment, we are claiming that there should be no tax. In his original reply the Minister told us of the difficulty of stewarding the operation and we have heard also of the difficulty on the part of the Revenue Commissioners but it is extraordinary that in the next amendment there is being created a problem for the Revenue Commissioners at the instigation of the Minister.
I am endeavouring to show the significance of a situation in which we, after two years of Coalition Government, are scraping the bottom of the barrel——
That is the point.
——and getting at those people by the same sort of reasoning as was put forward in respect of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, that was two years after the creation of the last Coalition and a year before the financial collapse of this country.
You are a lobby for the one-arm bank robbers as well as for the two-arm ones.
This section is a desperate attempt by a drowning Minister to extract the last few pence possible in order to keep the economy going. The same type of attitude was assumed by his Coalition predecessor in 1956.
It was the late Deputy Sweetman who laid the grounds for the prosperity that the people opposite cashed in on.
I had the greatest respect for the late Deputy Sweetman. I am merely emphasising the extraordinary coincidence in the situation then and now. Again, we are on a downward trend but we are endeavouring to tax the unfortunate seaside holiday makers. It is a pity that Deputy Kelly was not here to hear Deputy Andrews on the manner in which his constituents and those in the Dublin area generally go out to Deputy Murphy's constituency and get much pleasure from playing those machines. If they are lucky, they can win five pence for a penny outlay. I am glad to see that Deputy Timmins is here, too. There is no harm in calling for a quorum now and then because it appears that there is much going on among the front bench of the Coalition while, unfortunately, no effort is made to bring in the back-benchers.
Bank robbers.
One of the risks of calling for a quorum at this time of night is that you bring in Deputies who will persist in interrupting. However, I shall not be put off by interruptions from anybody especially at a time when the Government are not accepting their responsibilities.
It might have been different if the Minister had talked in terms of trying to create varying charges on gaming licences dependent on the robbery element of the one-armed bandits but a fee of £50 is to be asked for in respect of every machine. Undoubtedly, some of the big operators at the major seaside resorts as well as in Dublin will benefit from this measure because the smaller operator will be put out of business. From time to time, in the company of my family, I have played those machines and have got much pleasure from so doing.
The penny ones?
Yes. We shall leave Deputy Belton to deal with the larger machines of which he has his own type. There are machines from which it is possible to derive a fair amount of amusement for a 10p or a 20p outlay but if I were an amusement caterer I do not think I would pay £50 simply to licence a machine having regard to the cost of its maintenance and to the overall profit from it. That is why we consider this amendment to be justified. The greatest defence the Minister has is that he wants money, that the requirements of the country are such that operations of the type in question must be squeezed to the last penny. A small caterer who spends money in procuring a machine which will now be classed as a gaming machine would need to get a tremendous return from it in order to afford a £50 licence. If a man wishes to buy ten machines, it would be for him to extract the maximum amount possible from the gambler. If this measure goes through the day of the penny machines will be gone and in their place will be tenpenny or, at least five-penny, ones.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment and, thereby, to let us have some little amusement at seaside resorts and not have the extractors extracting on behalf of the Minister for Finance.
You were not here, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but the Ceann Comhairle was when the Minister replied initially to Deputy Lalor in regard to this amendment. I leave it to you as a neutral observer to judge who has the better case. When the Minister spoke first on the amendment he gave certain objections to which I shall refer in a moment. Now he emerges as a hypocrite because he has begun to moralise about the social policy of his Government and to tell us that to accept an amendment like this would represent an attack on or the erosion of the social objective of the Government.
All he has succeeded in doing is letting the cat out of the bag because we know now that he did not mean what he said initially. This was that acceptance of the amendment would create administrative difficulties. He does not say anything like that now. Rather, he says that the amendment's acceptance would erode the determination of the Government to achieve their social objective. I never heard such piffle in my life. It is obvious that what the Minister said the second time is right. What he said the first time is demonstrably wrong because it is demonstrated out of his own mouth.
Why did he not say: "We do not care whether they are amusement machines or gambling machines. We are determined to extract every possible ½p of revenue out of their operation. We do not care whether they are used by children for amusement purposes or by others for gambling purposes. We do not care whether the people who go in there have 3p or 4p to spend on amusement or whether they are people who are prepared to spend a lot of money on the operation of these so-called one-armed bandits." I agree with what the Minister said about the amount of revenue which can accrue if one of these one-armed bandits is placed in a golf club or in other clubs throughout the country. I have seen the figures and I accept the proposition that where a large number of people are using them a substantial profit accrues.
As Deputy Lalor said, we do not object to increasing the levy on their use. The Minister might have said in the first instance that he was not prepared to listen to us and that he did not care whether the machine was a 1p machine for the amusement of toddlers on a rainy day at a holiday camp or a seaside resort, that he would extract the maximum amount of revenue, and that he would treat them as being exactly the same as the one-armed bandit gambling machine.
I still submit that what I said earlier was correct. Unless he is even more "broke" than we know him to be, and he professes himself to be, he should find it possible to work out a scheme which would exempt these machines from all but minimal excise duty. There is no practical reason why such a scheme could not be operated. If what he said last is a fact, that he will use his Parliamentary majority to put these machines on the same footing for duty purposes as the one-armed bandits, we must submit to that because we have no other choice but to do so. The Minister wants to tax the most innocent amusement for toddlers in the same way as he is taxing real gambling and gaming.
It is time Members of the Opposition came down to reality. The maximum stake permitted under the law in a gaming machine is 2½p. It is not 5p, or 10p, or any of the other figures mentioned by the Opposition. The proposal here is that we should exclude all 1p machines. The suggestion is that there are just a small minority of machines played only by toddlers. I have already said that the legislation as such as will not impose any duty upon an instrument of sport or a machine which passes away the time. A duty is being imposed—and most properly imposed— on all machines where there is that element of gaming. In reply to what Deputy Flanagan has just said——
Is the Minister serious when he says that there is no one-armed bandit into which one can put 5p legally, no legal machine?
No legal machine.
It is going on all over the country.
On a point of clarification, is it possible to put in 10p?
That is the law. The law may be breached and maybe that is the reason why some people do not want the additional supervision which will necessarily be involved when revenue is being collected. That is the legal position under the Gaming and Lotteries Act. If there are machines which are using larger stakes they are against the law. All the machines will not carry an annual charge of £50. There is a special rate for machines which are played only on Sundays and on public holidays catering for the harmless little family trips to the seaside which have been discussed here with such great emotion tonight. If a machine is not used for a period longer than three months in the year the duty will be £12.50. If it exceeds three months but not six months it becomes £5. If it exceeds six months but not nine months it will be £27.50 and if it exceeds nine months it will be £50 per machine.
To return to Deputy Flanagan's angry words, when one is dealing with the Committee Stage of a Bill one does not rise on every section or amendment thereto to explain the philosophy behind the general proposals of the Bill. There is an explanation in my budget statement where, having dealt with the gaming proposals, I said:
The imposition of new taxation can normally evoke colourful epithets and violent hyperbole from the unthinking or the selfish.
Naturally, I exclude present company. I went on:
I suppose this budget will receive similar response from the same quarters. It would be well, therefore, to reflect that the new taxation in this budget is designed to transfer funds from the satisfaction of less essential tastes to the education of the young, to maintain and create productive employment in industry and agriculture, to the maintenance of the living standards of the needy, to the provision of essential health services for the sick and housing for the homeless and to the host of other services regarded in any decent society as demanding priority treatment.
What is the source of the quotation?
My budget statement on 15th January, 1975.
Does that mean that the Minister regards me as unthinking and selfish? Is that the burden of what the Minister said?
I said that I was naturally excluding present company. I was attacked as not defending this taxation proposal on the grounds that it was transferring money from less essential to more essential needs. I quoted from my budget statement to show that was the philosophy behind the imposition of this tax. All the new taxes in the budget are for the purpose of taxing non-essential activities or goods in order to provide revenue for more essential needs.
What amount of revenue does the Minister intend to collect?
£100,000.
To put the matter into perspective, before we go any further can the Minister state what amount of taxation he will receive from the identifiable number of machines which are being taxed and what increase in taxation does he expect on the identifiable machines?
These machines are not taxed at present.
What amount of taxation will accrue from what we are discussing at the moment and what will the expected increase be?
There is no gaming machine licence at present.
Will the Minister tell us what is the expected increase in taxation from the proposals before us? What is the expected yield? The Minister should not treat the House in his usual flippant fashion.
If the Deputy will yield I will repeat what I said when he was not listening. In reply to Deputy Connolly's courteous question, I said £100,000. Deputy Connolly confirms that.
I thank Deputy Connolly for his confirmation of what the Minister has said.
I had already given that information in my budget speech.
What the Minister says should be subject to confirmation. I am glad Deputy Connolly can confirm what he said.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Andrews is in possession.
The Minister in his interventions has used the expression on a number of occasions "one armed bandits". This clearly indicates the Minister's own undoubted prejudice. Deputy Lalor put the matter in perspective and so did Deputy Seán Flanagan when he charged the Minister with hypocrisy. We are suggesting that the Minister's raison d'etre for the proposed increases here is the transfer of the moneys collected to the social and economic needs of the country and that clearly indicates the bankrupt condition of the country's coffers. The Minister in invidious fashion says that by comparison with other countries we are being let off lightly. It is about time we stood on our own two feet and did our own thing in our own fashion and ceased comparing what goes on here with what happens in other countries and trying, by comparison, to justify in some way what we have done, are doing or propose to do. The Minister can be flippant and superficial. He can get his cheap laugh with his rather literary and historical debating society points about the less well off who attend these seaside resorts and visit these amusement arcades for the purpose of being amused and not for the purpose of gambling. He should keep in mind the fact that those who run these arcades—he described a number of them as friends of his own—are decent people who have been in the amusement catering business for a number of generations. The Minister now proposes to inflict all sorts of penal taxes on them with the aid of his majority here.
The Minister has dealt in a very off-hand fashion with the very reasonable contributions made by Deputy Lalor. On the previous section Deputy Lalor actually got the Minister to admit there was a drafting error. Later the Minister was ungracious enough to suggest that, because of our continued opposition to the section, he would withdraw his earlier concession. This is a most reprehensible way to deal with the House and the Opposition. Deputy Lalor and Deputy C. Murphy and others took three-quarters of an hour to obtain the particular concession on the previous section and now the Minister threatens us with the withdrawal of the concession. If the Minister goes on behaving in this fashion, we will have no option but to continue expressing our point of view until we succeed in getting the Minister to see reason.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a remark about one-armed bank robbers. We know what he had in mind remembering some of the recent speeches he made in regard to our attitude on a particular piece of legislation now before the other House.
We must keep to the amendment now.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not keep to the amendment. I accept what you say about keeping to the amendment but I would like to put the Parliamentary Secretary on notice.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I was asking the Minister to accept this very reasonable amendment. I call on the Parliamentary Secretary now to explain a remark he made here about support of one-armed bank robbers. We know to what the Parliamentary Secretary was referring; he was referring to our attitude on a number of matters but particularly in relation to a Bill which is at the moment before the other House.
The Chair has already pointed out to the Deputy that this is irrelevant to the amendment.
I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs that our attitude on the matters which he referred to is unequivocal and without any doubt whatsoever. When this particular Bill comes to the House——
The Deputy may not proceed any further on that line.
——we will deal with the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs——
The Deputy may not proceed further on that line.
——and the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Deputy must resume his seat.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that the Chair is telling the Deputy he is out of order.
I am about to come into order.
If the Deputy will give way to the Chair at the moment.
Certainly.
The Chair has repeatedly pointed out to the Deputy that he was proceeding from the amendment and that he could not discuss the matter which he wished to discuss at the time. If the Deputy would return to the amendment and stay on it he may proceed.
I was not discussing it. I did not refer to the matter the Deputy had in mind because I knew I would be outside the rules of order if I did. I said that he would deal with the charge implicit in the Deputy's remark when he made it and then having made it he ran for cover.
The Deputy is again going outside the amendment.
We did not make that much out of it.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary allow Deputy Andrews to conclude?
(Interruptions.)
Will the Deputy please get on to the amendment?
(Interruptions.)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and his pals are taking the pressure off the economic condition of the country by in some way charging the Opposition with not being concerned with law and order, but they will not get away with it.
Will Deputy Andrews please come to the amendment?
I appeal to the Minister for Finance to accept Deputy Colley's amendment, which, quite clearly, is an acceptable one, is reasonable and will protect the people this side of the House are concerned about.
During one of the Minister's replies he made a couple of points on which I would like to take issue with him. This side of the House differentiated between different types of gaming machines. The Minister bundled all such machines under the term "one-armed bandit". I tried to be objective in putting both cases on the record and I regret the Minister did not do so.
The Minister stated that it is necessary for the State to have a record of the number of gaming machines in the country. I agree with that, but I suggest that it is possible by means of a different system of licences to acquire this information and have a licence issued in respect of X number of machines per premises. The Minister anticipates that this taxation will yield £100,000. He went on to quote what are laudable aims, as expressed in his budget speech. A sum of £100,000 would not be sufficient to give every person registered as unemployed £1 a week.
The Deputy must come to the amendment.
I am in order because the Minister quoted from his budget speech to back-up the necessity for this taxation on those machines.
Will the Deputy deal with the amendment?
I am dealing with the revenue on machines and the anticipated return of £100,000, which the Minister said would be received from such taxation. The laudable aims of the Minister's budget could not be met by such revenue.
I hope the Deputy is trying to justify the amendment.
I am. I am stating the case as I stated earlier, hoping that the Minister might be more objective in his next response. He drew up a picture of a person proceeding on a row of those machines, pushing in pennies and pulling levers as quickly as possible. He said that a number of pennies could be spent in great rapidity. It is a pity he did not refer to the amendment in the name of Deputy Colley, which states that the maximum return would be 5p. I regret the Minister does not wish to differentiate between the different types of slot machines. This side of the House are not a lobby for one-armed bandits, as he implied or as the Parliamentary Secretary perhaps meant to imply on his hit and run attempt. We presented a reasonable case. The amendment refers to machines which would have 1p stake and would yield the maximum prize of 5p. Such machines ought not to be classified with the bad machines, as I described them, of the one-armed bandits which have a multiple jackpot system. For a stake a jackpot can be won and this jackpot can be gambled continuously by a player if he is successful at various odds. This is gambling in depth; it is bad. Surely the Minister realises the huge difference between the machine referred to in the amendment and the machine which is emotionally called the one-armed bandit. I do not think it would take a lot of revenue away; £100,000 would not go very far in these sad economic days.
I said I do not have very strong feelings about this amendment and it is a big pity that when the Minister was replying the last time he did not stop when he reached the stage where he had pointed out that the maximum legal bet was 2½p and that what he was doing was refusing to exclude 1p. He went on in his typical fashion to make a gratuitous attack on me. He broadened the debate entirely into the realm of philosophy about which he knows nothing and proceeded to philosophise by quoting from his budget speech. It was the Minister who took this line of action and not the Members on this side.
I resent the fact that the Minister should use a miserable little speech like this to make a gratuitous personal attack on me. Of course it is typical of the Minister; he has been doing that all his life. He did it when he was in Opposition and even in university. The Minister deserves any treatment he gets from this House for that repeated bad mannered behaviour which was so accurately described by Deputy Andrews as ungracious. That is the one word which characterises that particular gentleman.
I will not reply to that.
The Minister will not, and if he keeps going on like that he will get plenty of it; he will not get this Bill through until September 12 months if he continues in this fashion. It is typical of the Minister.
If someone accuses another of hypocrisy——
Out of the Minister's own mouth.
——he is hardly in a position to take umbrage if words were quoted from what was said in January to support something that is being done in April.
No better hypocrite came into this House since 1955.
The Deputy must not use that expression, and the Deputy knows that.
I am not so aware.
The word hypocrite is not parliamentary when used with reference to another Member of the House.
I used it in reference to a statement made by the Minister.
I take it that the Deputy is withdrawing the word hypocrite?
I withdraw the word hypocrite but not the allegation of hypocrisy.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 23 in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 24 in the name of Deputy Colley are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 22, subsection (2), lines 21 to 23, to delete paragraph (c) and to substitute the following paragraph:
"(c) A gaming machine shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to be available for play unless—
(i) the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied and so certify in writing, that by reason of—
(I) the inaccessibility to the public of the place in which it is stored, or
(II) the state in which it is, it cannot be played by the public, and
(ii) it remains stored in the place aforesaid or remains in the state aforesaid.".
This amendment proposes to delete paragraph (c) of subsection (2) and amendment 24 proposes to do the same. However, my amendment will substitute a paragraph which describes in what circumstances a gaming machine shall be deemed to be available for play. A gaming machine shall be deemed to be available for play unless the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied and so certify in writing that by reason of the inaccessibility to the public of the place in which it is stored or the state in which it is it cannot be played by the public and it remains stored in the place or in the state mentioned.
Amendment No. 23 achieves what Deputy Colley hoped to achieve by way of amendment No. 24. My amendment will ensure that where a gaming machine is broken or where it is surplus to a proprietor's requirement or where a proprietor is not using it during an off-peak season he will not be liable to duty. This appears to be the fair thing to do, and we are satisfied that the amendment will give the Revenue Commissioners what they must have in enforcing the law, the weapon to ensure that if an exemption is being granted it is not abused. The particular wording of the amendment will ensure that the Revenue Commissioners' requirements must be met, that is to say that a machine which a proprietor claims to be out of use will, in fact, be out of use.
Will the Revenue Commissioners be at every centre where there are machines to certify in writing immediately the machine is out of order? At what stage will the Revenue Commissioners certify in writing that the machine is not available for play? Will the Revenue Commissioners be available at all times beside these machines in the centres or will they inspect them periodically?
The Revenue Commissioners have similar laws to enforce in respect of licensed premises where alcohol is stored. They visit premises where excise duties are payable from time to time to satisfy themselves that the law is being enforced. It is therefore necessary to ensure that there are ways of enforcing the law. If a proprietor has premises to which the public have not got access and in which out-of-use machines are stored then the necessary certificate will be furnished. Steps can also be taken to put seals on machines to ensure that they will not be played unless and until a duty is paid on them. These are reasonable steps, and I understand that the amusement caterers accept them as being reasonable. They welcome them as providing relief for the kind of circumstance which they describe as occurring from time to time.
Does this mean that a machine cannot be certified for a considerable period? Does it mean that the offence is committed only after the machine is certified? Does it mean that in the period between the person can be prosecuted? This whole matter is vague. As in the case of licensed premises, it means that the Revenue Commissioners will have to visit these centres at frequent intervals. The Minister indicated earlier that the income would amount to approximately £100,000. Could the Minister indicate now what would be the additional cost of having Revenue Commissioners visit various premises in order to certify from time to time that machines are in an inaccessible place, properly stored or cannot be played by the public? What would be the cost involved, travelling expenses and so on, and by how much would it reduce the figure of £100,000?
The costs will be minimal because there are only 67 licences for the whole country. An inspector in any area would have responsibility for his particular area, together with what other responsibilities he may have. The reality of the situation will be this. A licence holder will have a licence which covers x number of machines. If a number of those machines becomes unplayable, the proprietor will be able to replace the broken machines which are kept on premises inaccessible to the public with playable ones. If, during an off-season period of the year, he wishes to avail of his right to pay a lesser duty for that portion of the year only for which the machines are used, he can remove machines from public access and put them on that part of the premises which is inaccessible to the public.
In relation to machines, I think the Minister mentioned a small number of places to be visited. There are approximately 20,000 machines. Is that the number of machines in operation?
It is understood there are more. But the licence will cover a number of machines. Each licence will cover a number of machines.
Each licence under section 41?
The excise duty is £50 per machine.
Under section 41, but the licence with which we are dealing here is a machine licence. Is that not correct?
That is correct.
Section 41 deals with the premises licence.
Yes, but one could have one licence to cover a number of machines. One could cover 500 machines or ten machines.
For the one £50?
No, no, there will be——
£50 per machine?
Yes.
And there are 20,000 machines. Is that not correct?
It is so much for each gaming machine to which the licence relates.
Twenty thousand machines at £50 per machine——
Will give £100,000?
Assuming that each machine is taxed for £50.
That would entail a lot of inspection.
If there are in operation 20,000 machines it will take a considerable number of Revenue Commissioners to certify them from time to time. There may be single machines in golf clubs, in sports pavilions——
That also would be against the law.
The Minister will ensure that the Revenue Commissioners frequent such places to ensure that such machines are either taken in or that the people concerned are prosecuted.
The only places where machines are permissible are licensed amusement halls under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. There have been breaches and persons have been prosecuted and are being prosecuted in respect of such breaches.
Is a social centre regarded as a permissible place?
There has to be a licence wherever gaming machines are operated except in respect of circuses and travelling shows.
We are back to the problem of premises.
No, premises are defined in the Act.
How many premises are there at present on which——
Sixty-seven licences.
Sixty-seven.
I do know that certain people who are members of the Amusement Caterers' Association of Ireland welcome this amendment. Is it possible that, say, a broken machine can remain in its place in a row and be exempt from licence?
If the Revenue Commissioners were satisfied it was a machine which could not be conveniently moved, that it had been satisfactorily rendered incapable of being played, then it would be exempt. But it would have to be incapable of being played, to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners. Mere temporary inability to operate it would not suffice because it could be repaired once the inspector's back was turned.
The Revenue Commissioners will be busy men.
The amendment says:
(c) A gaming machine shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to be available for play unless—
(i) the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied and so certify, in writing, that by reason of—
(I) the inaccessibility to the public of the place in which it is stored, or
(II) the state in which it is,
I wonder would the Minister consider substitution of the conjunction "and" for the conjunction "or"?
That would be an imposition on the licence holder. That would make it necessary for all licence holders to have portion of their premises which would be inaccessible to the public. As the amendment stands, that obligation would not exist, but the Revenue Commissioners would want to be satisfied that the machine was in such a state as to make it unplayable.
A moment ago when I asked the Minister if the machine could be left in its row, he prefaced his reply by saying: if it could not be moved. Would the Minister like to comment on the phrases: "if it could not be moved" and "the state in which it is"?
"If it could not be moved" and "the state in which it is" would mean that it was immobile.
Yes, but the machine would not be capable of being played; it would be broken. But the Minister, in replying to my question as to whether such machine could be left in its position in a row, implied that if it could not be removed, then it would be all right by the Revenue Commissioners.
There would be more to it than simply being incapable of being shifted from point A to point B; it would also be inoperable; it would be incapable of being operated. What would happen is this—an amusement caterer would take out a licence for, say, 50 machines. That allows 50 machines to be operated on his premises. If a couple of his machines fold up he can replace them by a number of other machines so long as he has not any more than 50 machines capable of being operated and accessible to the public. If he has more than 50 machines capable of being operated and accessible to the public, then he should have a licence for the number of machines in excess of 50.
Licences can be issued for various periods of time. I could foresee no difficulty in this if the period were to be statutory at three months. If a person has a licence for 50 machines for three months and if one of the machines becomes inoperable, can a claim be made?
The person could replace the inoperable machine with one that is capable of being operated. That is the general practice of the trade. They have stand-by machines to replace those that may be out of order. It is not a static operation.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.