Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 1956

Vol. 45 No. 12

Gaming and Lotteries Bill, 1955—Report and Final Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, Section 2, to delete "which are not yet ascertained or not yet generally known" in line 31, and substitute "which were not ascertained or were not generally known at the time of such guesses or estimates".

Lest there should be any ambiguity about the word "yet", I am asking the House to accept the amendment. This should clarify the position and prevent the courts interpreting the word "yet" as referring to the date of the passing of the Bill. I feel that the words in the amendment would be more appropriate.

I appreciate the trouble to which the Senator has gone in connection with this matter, but I am advised by the draftsman that he is satisfied with the section as it stands. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 4, Section 6, sub-section (1) (c), line 37, after "and" to add "in a collective game the promoter shall not collect more than double the amount of the prize money in each game and".

I take it amendments Nos. 3 and 6 will be taken in conjunction with No. 1.

Yes. This amendment is to prevent the promoter of games such as pongo, which is a collective game, from taking an undue profit, considering the fact that the prize money is now limited to 10/-. It is quite a common occurrence to have up to 100 people taking part in this game and there may be up to 50 games played one after another in the same evening. If the fee for each person who took part was 6d., it would mean the promoter would take in £125 and the amount that would be paid out would be £25. To my mind, that would be prevented if the section were amended. Instead of the promoter taking in £125, he would take in £62 10s. and the prize money would be of a similar amount.

The Minister may suggest that it is difficult to supervise such a game, but it is quite easy to see the number of people who are participating. If the prize money was 10/- and the entrance fee was 6d. for each player, it would mean that the number who would be permitted to play would be 40. If the entrance fee for each player was 3d., there would be 80 people permitted to play. It is not, therefore, very difficult to supervise or check on the number of people taking part. If one person had two cards, it would be quite easy to supervise the fact that only 40 cards were issued. I think it is wrong that there should be a section whereby a showman is only allowed to pay out 10/-, when there is not a corresponding section to limit the profits which the showman will derive.

The Minister has already stated that he has discussed this matter with the showmen and that they are satisfied with this section. I am not in the least surprised that that should be the case, because most people who take part in these games at the seaside simply do so on a wet evening for the purpose of relaxation. They are not too worried as to what the amount of the prize money is. I think that if the section is passed in its present form, the profits which the showman will derive will be greater than they have been in the past. They will always have the excuse that they are not permitted to pay out more than 10/- as set out in the section.

I am not an expert on this matter, but it strikes me that it is difficult to define the words "collective game". Apart altogether from that, would not supervision of this kind relating to every single game played during the day entail a great deal of work? I can understand how the provisions of the sections as they are at present could be enforced, but if Senator Walsh's amendment were accepted, it would be very difficult indeed to enforce it in every specific case. I do not quite see what kind of police supervision you would require so that the section as amended in the way Senator Walsh suggests would work. That seems to me to be a very important obstacle to the amendment.

I made these points at an earlier stage of this Bill and I think the Minister ought to consider seriously making a positive prize. As it stands, where 100 people are playing at 6d. each, the speculator or the operator of these games stands to win £2 as against 10/- for a prize, that is, the speculator will get four times the amount of the prize money. I thought perhaps the Minister would consider that section between the Committee Stage and this stage. I would support Senator Walsh in what he said, but I would further ask the Minister to have something positive, rather than have a nebulous amount of money. The number playing the game may be 50, 75 or 100, but there is no method of knowing how many will take part, what the percentage of the prize should be, or what amount of money the operator will make out of the games. Therefore, if we assume that £2 10s. is the normal run for a fully played game, then £1 ought to be the positive prize and it could be proportionately lower, according to the amount of money in the pool.

There is another point of view in connection with this. I would like to speak for the country parts, places like my own town, where pongo is not a regular feature and where it is played only when we have a carnival for the purpose of a church building fund or a school building fund, and the showman collects only a percentage of the total profit. It is usually a division between the committee and the showman of 50 per cent. each, the showman bearing all the cost of moving his games and equipment into the town. In that way, the disparity between the amount the investor gets and what the showman takes away is not nearly as great as would appear from the speeches that have been made here. I think this method would be a fairer way in all cases, apart from city pongo saloons.

With reference to the point raised by Senator Hayes, the amendment proposed by Senator Walsh does not seem to me to present any difficulty of enforcement, if it is accepted, any more than the enforcement of fair prices or the code marking of eggs. If there were a number of circulating inspectors, even the possibility that one would appear at a carnival to check the number of participants and the amount of the prize and compare them, would be sufficient to enforce, in many cases, Senator Walsh's amendment.

As regards the other amendments, I have already, on Committee Stage, spoken in support of establishing some fair relationship between the amount put up by the players in stakes and the amount of the prize. Therefore, I would very strongly support Senator Walsh's amendments, Nos. 2, 3, and 6.

If I may call your attention to the debates for the 14th December, 1955, column 863, Volume 45, the Minister, in illustrating some point in relation to the showmen's point of view, said:—

"As a matter of fact, a certain Englishman offered one of our showmen £50,000 merely to use his name."

I suggest that the lucrative prospects of using the showman's name indicate the possibility that quite a large percentage of the showmen's profits are derived from such lotteries and I have no sympathy at all with the point of view expressed on the Committee Stage that, in order to discourage gambling, we must encourage the promoters, if necessary, to the point of fleecing the general public. Therefore, I would support strongly Senator Walsh's amendment.

Senator Walsh rose.

I hope the Senator understands that we are not in Committee, unless the House so orders. The Senator is entitled to speak only once on Report Stage.

I would simply wish to reply to Senator Hayes's point.

The Senator will conclude the debate.

The existing provision in the Bill is that 16 must be the minimum. That does not always arise, only where there may be a sports on a particular day. If a carnival were operating for a week or a fortnight, it would not arise. I do not want to encourage gambling. Where you have a maximum of only 10/-, people will not continue to pay 6d. if they find, when successful, that the prize is only 10/-. The whole purpose of this Bill is to discourage gaming. Therefore, I am unable to accept the amendment put down by Deputy Walsh.

There is one point that arises from the remarks of Senator Hayes. His objection to the amendment is based on the belief that it would be impossible of enforcement, that it would not be possible or feasible to have the necessary supervision over the games if what is intended in the amendment were carried out. I submit that there must be supervision to carry out what is stated in the Bill:—

"Gaming carried on at any place as part of a circus or other travelling show shall not be unlawful gaming if—

(c) the stake in each game is not more than 6d. for each player."

There must be supervision to ensure that the stake in each game is not more than 6d. for each player.

That is a general rule.

In paragraph (d) of the same section—Section 6—there is provision to ensure that people under 16 years of age will not participate in the game. There must be continuing supervision, as far as I can see.

No. You do not require a policeman in every public-house all the time. He does not have to make calculations as he would under Senator Walsh's amendment. This is a case of more supervision by the State being required when the State does not want it or does not ask for it.

If there is supervision in one case, I do not see why there would not be in the other.

The Senator is all the time complaining that there is too much supervision, with which I agree.

I want to have consistency in the measure.

On a point of order, exactly what is the procedure on this stage? Are we on the Report Stage or are we not?

The Report Stage.

Should we not observe the order of procedure?

I shall do my best.

Surely an amiable interruption is not disorderly? The Senator is becoming very pernickety.

I think the debate is developing into a conversation.

Does Senator Walsh desire to conclude the discussion?

I wish only to make the point that Senator Kissane has made, that supervision is required to ensure that the provisions in regard to the amount paid by the player, the age limit and the prize money are enforced and that greater supervision is required in consequence of this Bill than was required before the Bill was introduced.

It would seem to me——

Is Senator Cox entitled to speak after Senator Walsh?

Not on this amendment. Is Senator Walsh pressing the amendment?

No, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 5, Section 8, sub-section (2), line 32, to delete "or Section 7".

Section 8 means that before a person may provide facilities or take part in a game he must be an Irish citizen— at least he must be a person who has been residing in the country for a period of 12 months. Section 6 relates to people who come in for commercial purposes and sub-section (1) (a) states:—

"the persons arranging for the holding of the event derive no personal profit from the event or from the game."

Now, if the amendment is not accepted it will mean that before a person may promote a game or provide facilities for a game he will require to reside permanently in the country, and the mere fact that he was an Irish citizen would not be sufficient. Take a bank official transferred temporarily for 18 months to Northern Ireland, or a priest who goes to England or to Scotland for two years on a mission and who comes back, or the case of a person from the West of Ireland who emigrates for a time.

When any one of these comes back, even though he is deriving no personal profit from the entertainment, he is debarred from providing facilities or from promoting such games. The amendment is simply to delete the words "or Section 7"—that those people who are promoting such games and deriving no personal profit and who may have returned to Ireland after a temporary absence should be entitled to do these things.

I regret we are unable to accept the amendment. I think it would be unfair if we allowed people from across Channel to come in here and take advantage of the tourist season and then to clear out with the profits. At the present time a person in the Republic would not be allowed to go into Northern Ireland unless his lorries or cars are specially taxed. The Senator's intention seems to be to widen the provision and to make it possible to bring in men here from the Six Counties during the busy period. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent the West of Ireland emigrant referred to by the Senator from coming in and providing these facilities in partnership with a resident of the Republic. Under this Bill we are legalising games which were never legalised before and we shall have many more people looking for licences. From that point of view we want to confine the concessions to the genuine showman who is dependent for his livelihood on his travels throughout the country. We cannot accept the amendment because it would open up too big a problem.

It occurs to me, reading the section, that the wording of the section is really rather meaningless. I think what must be meant is "the relevant date" because, if the intention is to exclude the person who for the time being has not been 12 months resident here, there might be a person who had previously been resident here but who would not have been resident for 12 months before a given date. I would suggest that if that is the Minister's intention, the words be altered to "relevant date."

I would just like to ask one question in connection with this section.

In relation to the amendment?

In relation to the amendment. It is in connection with this question of residence. I should like to know what exactly is meant by "residence" because a person could be going to and from the country over a period. It appears to me that that would give rise to some difficulty.

The Minister has referred again to showmen who come here from England and Northern Ireland. I should like to point out that Section 7 relates entirely to persons deriving no personal profit from the event or from a game. Consequently, the Minister's arguments in connection with the amendment do not appear to me to apply. The section relates only to people who apparently promote these entertainments for charitable and philanthropic purposes and who, therefore, are getting no gain whatsoever out of the entertainment. I cannot see why the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment suggested.

Is the amendment being pressed?

The question is "that the words in the section stand."

Before you put the question, a Cathaoirligh, and have a formal decision taken, would we not have the matter referred to the Attorney-General in reference to its implications in respect to the area under which the Constitution operates?

For the benefit of the House I shall repeat the question. It is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill".

Question put and declared carried.
Amendment accordingly negatived.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 5, Section 9, sub-section (2), line 46, before "or" to insert "his employees who are in the premises in the ordinary course of their employment, or persons who are resident permanently or temporarily on the premises".

This amendment is to deal with licensed premises and hotels. As the Bill stands, people resident in a hotel, employees of the proprietor and possibly members of the proprietor's family, would be excluded from playing cards for stakes in any part of the licensed premises. Speaking on an earlier stage, Senator Guinness, at column 870 of Volume 45 of the Official Report is quoted as saying:—

"We talk a lot in this country about the tourist trade. Unfortunately our climate is not always suitable. As I read the section, it seems to me that if tourists sit down to play a game of bridge for sixpence a hundred in a public-house, they will be breaking the law. That seems to me a ridiculous position to contemplate."

Take, for example, a party of English people doing a tour of Ireland by C.I.E. bus and who stay in a railway hotel. They are certainly not private friends of the licensee, but apparently they would be committing a breach of the law by playing a game of bridge, even for a penny a hundred, in their private bedrooms. Members of the staff of the premises would not be permitted to play a game of "twenty-five" or "old maid" in the kitchen of the hotel, even if it were for only a penny a game. Those people are entitled to be on those premises at any time of the day or night and are entitled to purchase intoxicating liquors after closing hours. It certainly will not encourage the tourist traffic if these people feel they are prevented from playing a mild game of cards on a wet evening.

Recently I was in a C.I.E. hotel. I noticed that a number of commercial travellers were playing a game of cards for a small stake in the lounge of that hotel. They were breaking the law. An enterprising member of the Garda Síochána might be tempted to come in and use his powers to prosecute or persecute those people for that infringement of the law.

I feel this amendment is reasonable in view of the fact that the private friends of a licensee are permitted to play while those who are resident in the hotel are not permitted to do so.

When we are dealing with this section, I should like to know what was in the framer's mind. The expression "licensed premises" conjures up in the minds of certain people the ordinary city or country pub. I had not looked on it in the way in which Senator Walsh looks on it. Surely there is nothing amiss in four or five guests in a hotel playing cards for stakes? From the point of view of tourism, I fear it is practically preventing guests from going into these places.

Was the Minister thinking of the ordinary public-house where—perhaps a person never saw it happening—maybe four or five people would sit in the main bar and play cards? If that was in his mind, it is possible that there would be some sense in the section. However, if he is preventing tourists or residents in the country from playing a game of cards for stakes— whether or not they are reasonable is a matter for themselves—I do not think it is fair. In my view, the section ought to be altered in some fashion to permit such games. I cannot consider four persons sitting down and suddenly deciding to play a game of cards as being gamblers, by any stretch of the imagination. I feel that Senator Walsh's points ought to be considered deeply.

I support this amendment. It seems to me ridiculous that we should have legislation here which makes such a thing illegal. Consider the position of clubs which are registered as licensed premises. To legislate on those lines seems to me to be entirely wrong. Therefore, I support this amendment.

I, too, support this amendment. In discussing the amendment, it seems to me we are also discussing the section—Section 9.

We should not be.

With all due respect, I submit that those Senators who have spoken before me have been discussing the section. I will come back to the amendment as nearly as I can.

One of the reasons why I have such sympathy with the mover of the amendment in what he seeks to achieve is that I had an amendment of much the same nature down on Committee Stage. I was hoping that the Minister—between the two stages —would see his way to accept the point of view that had been put forward here from every side of the House in connection with Section 9. I regard this section as one of the most absurd, if not the most absurd, section in the whole measure.

We have envisaged here a situation which will prohibit the owner of licensed premises from having people gathered in a private room of the premises for the purpose of having a quiet game of cards unless he is able to declare to a member of the Garda Síochána that all those people sitting around the table and playing cards are his friends. The question is: who is to determine exactly whether or not they are his friends? Will it be left to the publican or will the visiting member of the Garda Síochána take it upon himself to decide there and then whether those people engaged in the game of cards are or are not friends of the publican in question?

When we were discussing an amendment similar to this on the Committee Stage of the Bill, I was debating the matter from the point of view of people living in rural Ireland. I tried to point out to the Minister and to the Seanad that it was a common practice for certain people in the rural parts of Ireland to meet for a game of cards in a private room of licensed premises and that what we were doing here, in our attempt to enact this section, was interfering with that long-established custom and thereby interfering with the social life of the people living in rural Ireland. I hold that that is still the case. I hold that that is what we are doing when we enact this section.

I must say that I did not submit an amendment on the Report Stage for one reason more than any other, namely, that certain Senators were inclined to accuse me of being out to encourage gambling on licensed premises. I was not doing anything of the sort. I was just championing the case of people who meet privately in a room of licensed premises and have a game of cards with the proprietor of those premises.

Unfortunately, the position now will be that, under this section, if those people come in to have such a game of cards they may not do so unless they are being entertained by the publican at his own expense. I sought to delete the words "at his own expense" in an effort to see if I could get the Minister to face up to the problem in a commonsense way. However, he and other speakers referred to the Licensing Act of 1872 and said there was a similar section in that Act and that what we were doing here was, in fact, reenacting that section of the 1872 Act. In reply to that, I said that if that were the case — if a similar provision happens to be in the Licensing Act of 1872—what was the necessity for such a provision here. In any case, the fact that a certain section was in an ancient Act is not sufficient justification for our re-enacting it here again, unless we are convinced that the circumstances of the times would justify it. I submit there is no justification whatever for it.

There is one point in connection with this matter that has come to my mind. When I was referring to my proposal to delete the words in sub-section (2) of Section 9—if the friends are being entertained by him at his own expense—a question arises if those people come in to play cards and are not being entertained at all. I take it that what is meant by entertainment is the giving of refreshment and the words "at his own expense" would suggest that the Minister has that in mind, that what he means by entertainment is the giving of refreshments to the people assembled in that room. But if these people assembled in the room have a game of cards and have no refreshments, what is the position? Are they still breaking the law?

I am afraid the Senator is not arguing on the amendment.

Well, partly.

Senator Kissane may still be in order.

About the amendment —I have been arguing on the same principle. The principle involved in my discussion is much the same as the principle involved in the amendment and I must say that I am completely in favour of the amendment because we all know that from time to time the people employed by the publican come in at night to have a game of cards and the question that the Minister should answer, I think, is if those people whom the publican has employed on his premises to do his work come in for a game of cards with their employer, are they breaking the law or will they be breaking the law after the enactment of this section, that is, if it is to be enacted in its present form?

I should like to support the amendment. I feel that, as the Bill stands at present, it would seem to forbid all playing of cards. I think it clearly forbids playing cards in licensed premises and I certainly think the section should be amended.

I am sure that the Minister would be the last man to introduce class legislation, but if one examines this Bill very closely, one can see clearly that we have a very definite provision for class legislation, once we pass this Bill.

We are discussing the amendment now and we must keep close to the amendment of Section 9, to be in order.

To be in order, and in support of the amendment before the House, I would put my argument this way: every person who engages in any trade or in the selling of any product to the people is entitled to induce his customers to have a game of cards or a game of draughts, or any other kind of game except one type of person, a very small class of people who are the gatherers of the greater part of the taxation of this country. If we are not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by Senator Walsh, we are going to say that is unlawful for the person who holds the licence, who pays an annual licence fee and all his other contributions is the only person who is to be picked out in the State to be told: "You are one of the persons who are not entitled to invite friends to your premises or to have a game of cards, or draughts, or any other game by means of which one might pass away the hours on your premises."

Next door to that person with the same valuation and the same contributions and responsibility to the State and to the local authority, there is the fish and chip shop, or an ice cream vendor. Each and every one of those persons engaged in these various trades may invite his friends in to have a game of cards; there is only one section this Bill is directed against, and that is the people who are compelled by the State to make the greatest contribution to the revenue of the State.

The Senator must try to argue on the amendment.

That is looking at it from the financial point of view. If we take it from another point of view, I think the Minister and the House will agree with me that where provisions are made to have games of this kind, there will be less indulgence in the things the Minister proposes to remove in this Bill, so that the greater latitude he gives in this Bill, I would say, the better it will be.

Is the definition not quite in order with Section 2? As far as definitions are concerned, the definitions define what gaming means. Can we say playing cards is gaming in any part of a licensed premises? I am inclined to support the amendment and if the section could be changed, I think it is desirable it should be changed.

I am not prepared to change the licensing laws of 1943 in a gaming Bill. I am accused of doing something I am not doing. Under the licensing laws, the publican is not entitled to have any gaming. We all know that a game of cards goes on in every licensed house throughout the country and the Gardaí very sensibly, where they have no complaints from residents, do not take any interest in this.

Here is what I am doing now—I am giving permission to have an innocent game of cards or draughts or darts— all these things that we know have been carried on up to now, although it was against the law. Again, we used common sense and there were no prosecutions where these concessions were not abused, but I am giving the licensed trade authority to have whist drives or other innocent games carried on legally, although before these were carried on against the law. I am legalising them at the present time. If Senators have complaints about the licensing laws, a licensing commission is being set up, and I suggest that the licensing trade should submit their grievances to that commission in regard to the various things I am not able to remove in a Gaming Bill. They should put their evidence before the licensing commission where, I am sure, they will get every consideration; but on this section of the Gaming Bill, do not ask me to interfere with the Intoxicating Liquor Act.

Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 18.

  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Hawkins, Fred.
  • Kelly, Liam.
  • Kissane, Éamon.
  • Lynch, Peter T.
  • McHugh, Roger J.
  • Ó Buachalla, Liam.
  • Ruane, Thomas.
  • Stanford, William B.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Walsh, Louis.

Níl

  • Bergin, Patrick.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Cox, Arthur.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Fearon, William R.
  • Guinness, Henry E.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hickey, James.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCrea, James J.
  • McGuire, Edward A.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Prendergast, Mícheál A.
  • Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Cogan and Walsh; Níl: Senators L'Estrange and McCrea.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Government amendment No. 7:—
In page 9, Section 24, to delete paragraph (b), lines 28 and 29, and substitute:
(b) the total value of the prizes in the lottery is not more than £25 and, if more than one lottery is held, the total value of the prizes for the event is not more than £25.

On the Committee Stage, I undertook to have the section re-examined, as Senators were in some doubt as to the precise meaning of clause (b) dealing with the prize money. As originally drafted, the section provided for a limit of 10/- on the value of the prize which could be won by any individual.

We envisaged that there might be several prizes to the value of 10/-, but we did not see any incentive to gambling in that. In the Dáil, however, the 10/- limit was first raised to £5 and then to £25, with the result that, under the section as drafted, there could have been any number of prizes of £25 each. That would not be in accordance with the general trend of the lottery provisions in the Bill, and I have had the section redrafted to provide that the overall value of the prize does not exceed £25. This particular provision applies only in the case of a lottery at a dance in respect of which the promoters get no personal profit.

I thank Senators for directing my attention to the provisions in the section, which, I think, have been improved as a result.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 10, Section 27, sub-section (2) (a), line 9, after "lottery" to add "and shall be an Irish citizen ordinarily resident in the State."

I would like to speak on amendments Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12. With your permission, a Cathaoirligh, I would like to take them together. Before doing so, however, if it is in order, might I ask the Minister to expand one point he made in reply to me on the Committee Stage in relation to one of these amendments? Would it be in order to ask him to expand one answer he gave?

Put the question.

On the 15th December, I moved an amendment which now appears as amendment No. 11. I asked the Minister, as reported at column 938 of the Official Report of 15th December last, if he had any comment to make on that amendment. The Minister replied:—

"We put up a similar case on the other amendments. Section 26 provides that a lottery shall not be unlawful, if it is promoted and conducted wholly within the State in accordance with a permit or licence. The licensee must be resident here."

The point I am a little hazy about is the length of residence necessary in order to qualify a licensee as a resident. Would the Minister expand his answer on that point? What is the length of residence required?

I think the position is safeguarded by the provision that lotteries under permit must be conducted wholly within the State and the applicant must be resident in the district supervised by the Garda superintendent to whom he applies for a permit. Section 27 provides that the superintendent must be satisfied that the lottery is a bona fide one out of which the promoter will not derive any personal profit.

Would one or two days' residence be sufficient? What is the length of residence required?

I am informed that he must be "ordinarily resident."

What does that mean? Does it mean that for the greater part of the year he must be resident here?

Is that defined in the Bill? Is "ordinarily resident" defined in the Bill?

Not in this particular Bill.

Or in any other Bill.

It is defined in the income-tax code.

Perhaps Senator McHugh would make his case. He will have an opportunity of replying if the Minister does not give a satisfactory answer.

The principle underlying all these amendments, Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12, is the same. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that lotteries held within the jurisdiction of the State shall be run by Irish nationals and shall be controlled by people subject to, and within the jurisdiction of, the State. In order to secure a clear discussion on this matter, I have cut out the previous references to the beneficiaries of lotteries; I had included those in my amendments on the Committee Stage. I think the issue is not a straightforward one. The contrary principle, namely, that non-nationals, after what could be a very brief residence here, would be allowed under the Bill to run lotteries in this State, would be a very undesirable one. In reply to the point I have just raised the Minister said on the Committee Stage of the Bill:—

"It may be necessary for the members of the Garda to inquire as to the character of the applicant, or any of the other interested parties."

Now, if the period of residence is a very short one, there is no guarantee that the Garda will be able to inquire sufficiently to ascertain what, in fact, the character of the applicant for the licence is. An alien wolf, as has happened before, may easily acquire a national sheep's clothing during a brief period of residence; unless it is quite clear that a long period of residence, such as five years—I think that is the period necessary before one can take out citizenship—is laid down, one may be up against all kinds of possible trickery. People may come over here for a short period, conduct themselves in an exemplary fashion, be granted permission to run a lottery, and then clear out. The alien wolf is in the position that he can clear out while the native wolf must at least remain in the country and will consequently be within the jurisdiction of the State. I would strongly urge that amendments Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12 be adopted.

One of the provisions of Section 27, which the Senator is seeking to amend, is that the lottery must comply with certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the permit holder shall derive no personal profit from the lottery. The promoter of lotteries under this section can derive no personal profit from them. The question, therefore, of an alien coming in here, acquiring residence and promoting a lottery does not seem to me to be within the relevance of either possibility or probability. If that did happen, the promoter would promote the lottery for an unworthy reason and he can only promote a lottery having got a permit from the Garda superintendent who must be satisfied with regard to the promoter's character. The lottery must be promoted for a charitable purpose.

And then the promoter disappears with the funds!

I regret to say that natives now and again disappear with funds. Disappearing with funds is not a national characteristic of any one nation. The Senator's amendment would have some validity, perhaps, if it were a question of allowing a particular person to make a profit. If, for example, an individual is not a citizen of this State, but is resident here, and desires to promote a lottery for a charitable purpose, I do not see any reason why he should not be permitted to do so. Running away with funds has nothing to do with nationality and I think the Senator was jocose in that remark.

I have nothing to add.

The whole purpose of my amendment is to safeguard our people against the operations of crooks. A crook may pretend he is running a lottery for a charitable purpose, but there is no guarantee that he is doing so. If he is resident here in the sense in which a citizen is resident, there is some guarantee that the Garda will be in a position to ascertain and assess his correct character. If, on the other hand, he only comes over here for a short stay, the Garda will not be in a position to do that. That is why I am so anxious to get the term "resident" defined. If he can come over for a short stay, pretend he is running something in aid of charity and then disappear with the funds, I think we must take steps in legislation to prevent that kind of thing happening.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 20.

  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Hartney, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Fred.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Kelly, Liam.
  • Kissane, Éamon.
  • Lynch, Peter T.
  • McHugh, Roger J.
  • Ó Buachalla, Liam.
  • Ruane, Thomas.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Walsh, Louis.

Níl

  • Bergin, Patrick.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Cox, Arthur.
  • Davidson, Mary F.
  • Guinness, Henry E.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hickey, James.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Prendergast, Mícheál A.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCrea, James J.
  • McGuire, Edward A.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • O'Brien, George.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Stanford, William B.
  • Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators McHugh and Cogan; Níl: Senators McCrea and L'Estrange.
Amendment declared lost.

I take it amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are now decided?

Yes. I move amendment No. 9:—

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

The principle of amendments Nos. 9 and 13 is the same, and, with your permission, Sir, I should like to take them together. In both cases, I propose to reduce the prize money to £100. I have been led to this, in a way provoked into it, by the continual assertion of the Minister that the purpose of this Bill was largely to discourage gambling. His argument in discouraging gaming was that if one kept the prize low, even by allowing the promoter to collect an exorbitant profit, one would discourage gambling. I wish to apply this principle now as a test case to lotteries. Let him keep these prizes low in order to reinforce the stated policy behind the Bill. Either the principle behind the Bill is to discourage gambling and lotteries, or it is not.

In the Dáil, I suggested that the total value of the prizes should not be more than £100, but the majority of the members of the Dáil raised it to £300 and I must accept the decision of the members of the Dáil because I am satisfied that they would still adhere to that decision. I endeavoured, like the Senator, to keep the prize money as low as possible, but a very large majority of the Dáil, representative of all sides of the House, insisted, and, when they appealed to me, I reluctantly had to accept the views expressed by them and to increase the amount to £300. They made a particular case, that the costs and expenses in connection with a lottery were heavy and that a prize fund of at least £300 would be necessary in order to enable the promoters to compete against some of the lotteries advertised in the daily papers. I regret that I am not able to accept the Senator's amendment, for the reason that it would not be passed in the Dáil.

The difference between lotteries and gaming is clear. Lotteries are mostly for charitable purposes. Unless a reasonable incentive is given, people will not buy tickets. Senator McHugh made the point that the State is trying to discourage gambling. We are all in agreement with that object. The State is trying to do that even in this Bill. There is not very much danger of anyone becoming degraded by taking part in lotteries. The chances are so long that there is not very much danger of any Irishman becoming a confirmed lottery-ite, although there could be a danger of his becoming a confirmed gambler. In this case, it would be better to retain the figure in the Bill so that these lotteries, which are nearly always for very good purposes, could have a reasonable chance of success against the bigger lotteries, such as the Sweep. Therefore, I would be in favour of retaining the section as it is and would be opposed to the amendment.

I know that, even if I press the amendment, I will be beaten on a vote and will again have to endure the humiliation of seeing people who support me march into the opposite Lobby, so I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 14:—
In page 11, to delete Section 34 and substitute the following:—
(1) No person shall take or send or attempt to take or send out of the State any ticket, counterfoil or coupon for use in a lottery or any money for the purchase of, or any money representing the purchase-price of, a ticket or chance in a lottery or a prize won in a lottery, or any document relating to the purchase or sale of, or indicating the identity of the holder of, any such ticket or chance.
(2) This section does not apply to the export of tickets, coupons, counterfoils and other documents printed in the State for the promoters of a lottery promoted and conducted wholly outside the State.
(3) Where a lottery is promoted in accordance with a licence for a beneficiary outside the State, this section shall not prohibit the taking or sending out of the State, to a person acting on behalf of the beneficiary, of documents relating to the lottery when the prize-winners have been determined.

Could we have some explanation of the reason for this amendment?

I undertook on Committee Stage to consider a suggestion of Senator Cox that, in the case of a lottery promoted under licence, it should be permissible to send documents to a beneficiary outside the State. I have decided to accept the suggestion and I have had the section redrafted. When doing so, the draftsman took the opportunity of adding the word "take" to the words "send or attempt to send out of the State." This is merely a technical detail.

I am quite satisfied. I think the amendment will meet the point I raised.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:—
In page 13, to delete Section 42.

On Committee Stage, there was criticism of this section and Senator Cox and others asked that it be amended, so as not to apply to counsel or solicitors in the exercise of their professions. While I was inclined to accept that proposal there and then, I have come to the conclusion, on further consideration, that it is better still to delete the section from the Bill. The provisions of the section would, undoubtedly, have made it easy for the police to make immediate checks into complaints as to how particular lotteries were being conducted, but I have decided to drop it, in deference to the adverse views expressed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 14, Section 50, sub-section (2) (inserted in Committee) to delete "left at or forwarded by post" and substitute "sent by registered post".

Senator Hawkins, who put down the amendment, is not present in the House at the moment, but I think I could recommend, on his behalf, that the Minister would accept the substitution of the words "sent by registered post", so as to make sure that people's correspondence sent in postal packets, will not be tampered with lightly.

I think the phrase "left at or forwarded by post" are words taken from the Post Office Act 1908, and are words which are commonly used in this particular context, effecting this particular purpose. The Senator's proposal, that these words should be deleted and that notice should be given by registered post, would involve considerable delay and considerable difficulty. I do not know why the situation should not be left as it has always been.

I always felt that it is a very simple matter to ensure that a document is really served and when one says "left," or "sent by ordinary post" the document may very easily go astray. I think the very least one is entitled to do, when a more or less official document is concerned, is send it by registered post. I do not think such a procedure would involve too much trouble.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Before we pass the Final Stage of this Bill, I should like to reiterate a few words to which I gave expression when we were debating the Second Reading, that is that it was my opinion, as it is still my opinion, that many sections of this Bill will be found to be unenforceable. I do not know how long this measure has been under consideration by the Minister and his Department, but I do say that it will be found very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce some of its sections. At the same time, I am one of those who realise it was necessary to make some attempt to tighten up the laws in this country as regards gaming and the holding of lotteries. I suppose it is as we proceed with the implementation of the measure that we shall find ourselves up against the snags to which I have referred.

My greatest concern, as Senators must be well aware now, is about Section 9. I do not propose to debate Section 9 at any great length this evening because I realise we have given full expression to our views on that section; but there are one or two things I should like to refer to at this stage. One is the idea that, if there is a certain provision in an existing Act. which Act perhaps may go back over a period of 100 years, it is incumbent on us now, in the twentieth century, to accept the principle enshrined in that ancient Act. I think that should never have been regarded as an argument in favour of any measure introduced in modern times, or in favour of any section of any such measure.

As I said, I am strongly of the opinion that it will be found that the provisions of Section 9 are impossible of implementation. There is one thing in reference to Section 9 that I cannot refrain from alluding to again and that is the question of entertainment—the entertainment that is to be provided or that is envisaged in the section, the entertainment that the owner of a licensed premises would give to the people assembled on his premises or in a private room of his premises for the purpose of having a game of cards.

I had hoped the Minister would refer to this particular aspect of the matter at some length, but I am afraid he has left us in the dark regarding it. I want to find out, even at this late stage, what is meant by the word "entertainment," because it is down here in very plain print that, to be within the law, the proprietor of a licensed premises, the publican, must give entertainment, must entertain those friends, those people who are styled his friends, without payment. I asked a question regarding the possibility of their being on the premises for a game of cards without any entertainment being provided. What is the position in that case? Are they outside the ambit of the section or will they be playing cards unlawfully? I should like to hear a little more on that question before we pass the final stage. For instance, if the proprietor of the licensed premises offered a few cigarettes to his friends assembled on his premises, would that be entertainment? Supposing the proprietor offered them a glass of milk or some other form of refreshment, would that be regarded as entertainment?

A lot of people would not think a glass of milk was much entertainment. There can be no doubt about that.

The words that tickled my fancy were the words "be entertained by the publican at his own expense". I wonder how many publicans would be found in any part of the country who would be prepared to continue entertaining their friends night after night, because some people do play cards night after night; how many publicans will be found to entertain these friends night after night at their own expense? Surely such a publican would be a wonderful public benefactor. Would the Minister deal with those few points?

The only thing I should like to say is that this is not a final Bill; there will be other Ministers and other Governments who will find it necessary to amend and improve this measure as time goes on. I have already dealt with the point now raised by Senator Kissane on Section 9 and I have pointed out that we have now given power to the licensed traders of the country to carry on games they were never before permitted to operate. If there are complaints in connection with other matters, there is a body before which they can make these compaints. I have nothing further to say, except to repeat that other Ministers and other Governments will come along and may see fit, after the Act has been in operation for some time, to make improvements, where necessary, where flaws are found to exist. The Senator asked how long this measure has been under consideration by the Department. He well knows that it has been considered over the past nine or ten years.

It would need a couple of years more.

I am bringing in a Bill which was prepared by my predecessor.

I should like to ask the Minister if, having regard to the statement he has just made, he would subscribe to the suggestion made here that we are doing nothing that is not already in existence in the Licensing Act of 1872.

Because the Minister is now saying he is giving certain power for the first time.

Yes; I am giving power for the playing of whist and darts and other ordinary games which may be played in public-houses throughout the rural areas. That power is being given for the first time.

Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill, as amended, be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share