I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The only substantive provision in the Bill provides that gaming by means of a slot-machine is "unlawful gaming" within the meaning of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts. That is the only object of the Bill, which is being proposed to close off what is, in effect, a loophole in the Acts which arises following a recent Supreme Court decision. The effect of that decision is that the type of slot-machine which delivers prizes direct to the person who operates it successfully, that is the kind which is popularly known as the "one-armed bandit", may be operated without restriction anywhere, with the sole proviso that, in common with all other kinds of gaming, as defined in the Acts, such machines may not be operated in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
The intention of the Oireachtas when the Principal Act, that is the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, was being amended in 1970, was that such machines should be subject to very strict control and it was very much to my surprise that the Supreme Court decided that they were not subject to such control. Before I go on to explain the sequence of events which led to the Supreme Court decision, I should like to draw attention to the fact that other forms of slot-machines, that is, those that do not deliver when successfully operated a prize direct to the player, are subject to strict controls and have been since 1956. Thus the machines which traditionally have been regarded as being potentially most socially harmful are at present virtually free from controls while those considered less harmful are subject to restrictions. This anomalous situation needs to be rectified and, in my opinion, the way to do so is what is proposed in this Bill, namely, the reimposition of controls on the "one-armed bandit".
The history of the relevant provisions in the Acts is briefly as follows. The 1956 Act outlawed the "one-armed bandit" completely. This was done by section 10. Another section, section 4, defined certain forms of gaming as "unlawful gaming" but other sections of the Act permitted "unlawful gaming" in certain very restricted circumstances. One of the kinds of gaming defined as "unlawful gaming" in section 4 was "gaming by means of any slot-machine not prohibited by section 10". The Acts as I have said, allow "unlawful gaming" in certain circumstances. Thus such gaming may be carried on in an amusement hall or funfair licensed as such under the Acts but subject to certain strict limitations on the stake and the prize money and on the ages of those who may take part.
In 1968 a Supreme Court decision declared the law in regard to slot-machines to be other than all concerned, including the gardaí and amusement caterers, had always thought it to be. The court declared that even those slot-machines which did not deliver prizes direct to the winner were subject to the total prohibition in section 10. The Government decided to introduce legislation to restore the position to what it had been thought to be. The Bill was modified in its passage through the Dáil and, as enacted, is the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1970. It repealed section 10in toto. The position was then thought to be that all slot-machines whose operation came within the definition of gaming in the 1956 Act were subject to the controls on “unlawful gaming” provided in that Act.
The Supreme Court, as I have said, has now declared that that is not the case. The basis for the decision is as follows. A reference to the repealed section 10 of the 1956 Act in section 4 of that Act was not repealed by the 1970 Act and the Court concluded from that fact that section 4 did not apply to those machines which were formerly prohibited by section 10. In consequence, the position now is that their operation does not come within the definition of "unlawful gaming" in section 4. May I say that the Parliamentary Draftsman was fully satisfied in 1970 that there was no need to repeal the reference to the repealed section 10 and he believed that those machines which had been subject to the prohibition in that section would for the future be caught by section 4. That view was not accepted by the Supreme Court, though it was by the High Court Judge who considered the case before it was appealed.
The Bill in section 1 (a) proposes to restore the position to what it was thought to have been up to the recent Supreme Court decision. The proposed deletions from sections 37 and 42 of the 1956 Act, in section 1 (b), of the Bill are purely drafting ones and cannot affect the sense of those sections.
I am very much aware that there are demands from various quarters for farreaching changes in the Gaming and Lotteries Acts. I am considering the various proposals that have been made from time to time. This is a very complex and delicate area, however, and pressures on my Department have not so far permitted the kind of analysis that I would regard as appropriate before any important proposals for change are formulated. In so far as pressure for an easing up on the restrictions on gambling are concerned may I say that my inclination is not to hasten to accept the proposals.
This is purely a measure intended to meet what I consider to be a potentially very harmful development. The unrestricted operation of slot-machines could have very unfortunate consequences, not only in that it would pander in a very positive way to the gambling instinct but because it is a development that could attract the attention of very dubious if not down-right criminal elements.
I have received representations from the Amusement Caterers Association of Ireland asking that legislation on the lines of this Bill be enacted. That is not to say that they, and others, have not both now and in the past advocated further changes. For the reasons I have already mentioned it is not my intention at this stage at any rate to propose any further changes.
I commend the Bill to the House.
