Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 May 1970

Vol. 68 No. 3

Gaming and Lotteries Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

The object of this Bill, as originally introduced in Dáil Éireann, was to amend section 10 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, so as to permit of the operation of slot-machines which do not pay out direct to the player but require the intervention of an attendant to enable the player to collect his prize.

Section 10 of the 1956 Act prohibits the operation of any slot-machine that is "designed to deliver" a money prize when successfully operated. For more than twelve years the section was construed by district justices as prohibiting the use of machines with automatic pay-out to the player through the front but as allowing the use of machines which are modified in such a way that the pay-out is at the back to a place not directly accessible to the player. On that basis machines modified to pay out the back were widely operated under licence from the district court at seaside resorts and in urban centres throughout the country. In December, 1968, however, the Supreme Court upheld the view of a district justice that the operation of these modified machines was in fact prohibited by section 10.

When the Bill in its original form came before the Dáil, my predecessor explained that its sole purpose was to restore the position to what it was prior to the Supreme Court decision, namely, to permit the operation of machines delivering the prizes out the back. The main justification for this proposal was that the proprietors of amusement halls had invested substantial sums of money in the purchase and adaptation of these machines during the period when their use was allowed by the district court and they thus had a very strong argument, based on established equities, for the restoration of the status quo.

However, the spokesman for the two Opposition Parties urged that the amendment should go further and that the law should be amended so as to permit the operation of slot-machines which deliver prizes whether out the front or out the back. The Minister undertook to reconsider the matter in the light of the views expressed and, following consultation with the Garda Síochána, he put down an amendment for Report Stage to repeal section 10 of the 1956 Act instead of simply amending it. This was unanimously agreed to by the Dáil and the result is the Bill which is now before this House.

By providing for the repeal of section 10 the Bill will in effect remove the absolute prohibition at present imposed on the operation of all slot-machines which, when successfully operated, deliver a money prize whether out the front or at the back. Enactment of the Bill will not, however, mean that anybody will be free to install these machines in his premises for operation by members of the public. The use of the machines will continue to be subject to the general restrictions on gaming contained in the 1956 Act. The effect of those restrictions is that, subject to certain exceptions, gaming may be carried on only in an area where the local authority has formally passed a resolution adopting the relevant provisions of the 1956 Act and then only in amusement halls and funfairs licensed for the purpose on the authority of the district court.

In all cases where gaming is permitted there are certain general conditions which must be observed, the main ones being that the maximum stake shall be 6d, the maximum prize 10s and that no person under 16 years of age shall be allowed to play. Because of reports which have appeared to the effect that this Bill will legalise the installation of slot-machines in public houses, I want to emphasise that this is not so and that any kind of gaming on such premises will continue to be prohibited.

The operation of slot-machines in amusement halls, particularly at seaside resorts, is an attraction for holiday makers and benefits the tourist trade. It is an attraction which I believe may safely be allowed to continue, subject to the restrictions which I have outlined and which are in the 1956 Act. I have no hesitation therefore in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is right to express a word of welcome to the Minister for Justice on his first appearance here. I am sure he will not misunderstand me as approving of his general politics when I say that. Indeed I am not sure which side of the Fianna Fáil Party he is in.

Mr. O'Malley

There is only one side.

Mr. O'Higgins

Anyway, I welcome the Minister personally and in that limited sense I wish him success. He has explained the purpose of the Bill and I think that for his first entry to the Seanad arena he will have a comparatively easy time. Certainly, I have no objection to the Bill. I think its underlying purpose, though it may go a little further, is to re-enact, so to speak, or to put the general legislation on slot-machines back into the position the Oireachtas thought it was in after the enactment of the 1956 Act, and the judicial decisions, or permits, if you like, which were given on that.

We all understood, when the 1956 Act was passed and was in operation for some time, that the position was these slot-machines could be operated, at least where local authorities had passed the necessary resolutions, provided they were not operated in such a way that a cash prize or a prize was delivered from the machines to the operator. I am sure the Minister and Senators are aware that there were various modifications of those machines whereby instead of a prize being delivered directly to the operator the machines were operated in such a way that the prize came out of the back or that the area at the back was fenced off so that it was necessary for an assistant or somebody else in the fun palace to intervene before the prize was delivered to the operator.

I have read and heard that in some cases a system was adopted whereby instead of the machine actually delivering a prize, front or rear, the assistant went around delivering prizes if a particular result was denoted on the machine. This, of course, could have been a device to get around the legislation as it stood. By and large, it was understood during the past 12 years that if the machine did not deliver the prize directly to the operator it was all right but that if it did then it was precluded by section 12 of the Act. I think the reasoning behind that was somewhat analogous to the position of the earlier licensing Act where the "Golden Hour" was introduced to interrupt the long sitter. The idea of adopting this cumbersome system whereby the prize does not go direct to the operator meant that there was a break in the proceedings. The operator—and when I say "operator" I mean the person working the machine in an attempt to win a prize and not the proprietor—was protected from becoming engrossed in the game and putting in coin after coin after coin in the hope of hitting the jackpot.

I appreciate that the whole machinery in relation to slot-machines of this particular type was perhaps too rigid and too harsh because, as the Minister has pointed out, the maximum stake is as low as 6d and the maximum prize is as low as 10s. I understand, rightly or wrongly, that the limit is not the normal operating procedure and that very often those machines are operated on the basis of putting in 1d rather than 6d and the value of the prize money may be considerably less than 10s. It is hard in some ways to see how a person could become addicted to harmful gambling with a stake possibly as low as 1d and in any event not higher than 6d.

I do, however, appreciate that there was something which it was necessary to safeguard against. When the 1956 Act was introduced I think the Government of the day recognised their duties and their obligations in the matter and endeavoured to legislate in such a way as to permit what might be described as entertainment in the gambling field without at the same time allowing such an open situation whereby people who operated these machines might become compulsive gamblers or become overtly addicted to gambling. It did not work out in that way, in view of the court decision which the Minister has referred to.

On reading section 10 of the 1956 Act I was rather surprised to find that for 12 years it was interpreted as permitting payment of the prizes to be made from the rear of the slot-machine. The district justice who decided that that simply was not allowed under section 10 was quite right. The Government's method of remedying the situation is simply to remove section 10 completely from the Act. The Bill before the House does not as the Minister inadvertently said, amend section 10 of the Act: it repeals it. When I read the Bill first it struck me that perhaps the Government were going too far by repealing the section instead of just amending and spelling out what was to be permitted in relation to these slot machines. I feel the Government might be going too far in the other direction. They might, in fact, be allowing slot machines to be operated without necessary restrictions.

The Minister has pointed out that though section 10 of the 1956 Act is being repealed—and therefore being removed from our legislation—certain general restrictions will still have to be complied with. I agree that that is possible, but once the necessary resolution is passed by the local authority and the limitations as regards the stake and prize money are settled, then it does seem to me that the thing is wide open because there is no other restriction on these machines. If there was any justification in the earlier reasoning, as I understand it, that it was necessary to have some kind of break or interruption in order to safeguard against the dangers which might seem to be inherent in this form of gambling entertainment, it seems to me that justification still exists and this Bill might just possibly be going too far simply by repealing section 10 completely instead of amending it.

As Senator Gallanagh knows, when I was in the other House I represented a constituency where this form of entertainment plays a large part in the entertainment of visitors particularly during the tourist season. The people who run this kind of entertainment found themselves in difficulty under the law as it stood. These are expensive machines. Many of them are entertaining to look at. They are expensive, involved and complicated. It meant considerable capital outlay on the part of the proprietors to install these machines. For 12 years they were able to install them. Possibly they had to incur additional expense in modifying the machines in order to comply with the understanding of the law as it then was.

At the same time, it seems to me that these people would probably be quite happy if the position were to be put by the Oireachtas on the basis that they understood it was following the 1956 Act and from 1956 to 1968. It is a bonus for them that the Government have decided to deal with the matter in this way and to repeal section 10 rather than to amend it. I am assuming, I think rightly, that the Minister is satisfied and that the Government are satisfied that by dealing with this matter in this way there will not be any great outbreak of gambling of an undesirable character associated with these machines and that the likelihood of creating addicts for the one-armed bandit is unlikely to arise. On that basis I have not any objection to the particular course the Government have decided on in relation to section 10 of the 1956 Act.

Mr. Gallanagh

I welcome the change in this Bill. I advocated this change and I am glad to see from the reports in the Dáil that Deputy Fitzpatrick of the Fine Gael Party and Deputy Pattison of the Labour Party agreed with me on this. Under the 1956 Act it seemed ludicrous that it was permissible to have an attendant to pay out a win on a machine and yet it was not possible for the machine to carry out the function for which it was intended, that is, to pay out automatically. I welcome this, as Senator O'Higgins has said, because we have many visitors to the seaside and it is necessary to entertain these people, particularly in temperate weather. There is need for entertainment and relaxation. This is one form of relaxation.

Although I welcome the Bill I note that it is permissible at the moment to use a coin up to sixpence in value. The sixpence will disappear. In no circumstances should the Minister allow that sum to be increased. We should strive to make those machines something that would be played for amusement only. If we can keep them in the low coinage range of the new penny we will have machines for amusement only. They should not be allowed to increase that figure to five new pence.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the age limit for those amusements establishments is enforced. Many parents complain about children of all ages being allowed to go into them. A certain amount of encouragement is given to them. Children will find money for those machines if they have to. They will use means which may not be legitimate to find money for the machines if they are allowed into the amusement centres. The people who procure the licences through the local authorities and the law courts should be aware of the fact that they have the privilege of using the licence and also the responsibility. They should be made to realise their responsibilities. This Bill should relieve us from pressure from the amusement caterers.

Mr. McDonald

I welcome the new Minister to the Seanad for the first time. Like the previous speaker, I feel that a definite effort should be made to ensure that the persons playing the machines should be more than 16 years of age. Very often the attendants in those places appear to be less than 16 years of age also. This is not provided for in the Bill. I regret that the Minister has not availed of this opportunity to include some method of ensuring that the bogus collectors and ticket sellers which the country appears to be plagued with are more strictly dealt with. This is a great pity. There are people preying on excellent charitable organisations. This important job must be tackled.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Surely that has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. McDonald

Perhaps the Minister would bring in amending legislation to deal with the ticket-sellers and over-enthusiastic collectors.

Mr. Nash

This is an amending Bill. It strikes me as strange that when we are bringing in decimal currency in a short period we did not make provision for amending section 7 in this Bill which deals with the stake of sixpence. When decimal currency is introduced the legal definition of one penny will be then what is now 2½ pence and the stake will be 1s 3d. Once that is allowed at all there will be difficulties. People will have installed machines costing much money. Injustice cannot be done to them by interfering with the status quo. Any encouragement to gambling, except for trifling sums and for amusement, would be very bad.

I ask the Minister in the course of this Bill to make provision for decimal currency. Otherwise, when decimal currency comes into effect, and with legislative time as long as it is, I feel resonably certain there is no hope whatever that any amending legislation will be brought in for a year or two and by then the harm will have been done.

Mr. Russell

Together with my colleagues in Fine Gael, I would like to extend a welcome to Deputy O'Malley as the new Minister for Justice. Personally, I am glad once again Limerick is represented on a Ministerial basis.

A number of the points I intend to raise on this Bill have already been raised by other speakers. I should like to support those who have referred to the change to decimalisation which comes into operation in February of 1971. I am sure the Minister will keep that in mind in endeavouring to ensure that the amount to be gambled will not be in excess of the present equivalent of 6d.

Senator McDonald was almost ruled out of order when he endeavoured to extend the scope of this Bill but I hope I am in order in referring to the Second Stage speech of the Minister's predecessor, the politically lamented Deputy Ó Móráin, and I quote from column 1624 of the Official Report for 21st November, 1969:

This Bill restores the status quo to what it was before the High Court decision. I think this is as far as we should go at this point of time. The question of a comprehensive lottery Bill dealing with all kinds of things, such as street collections on which the law is very unsatisfactory, is another matter and would need inquiry and would need time and preparation.

I shall not go beyond that except to say that I hope the Minister will consider this problem, which is a serious one. There is a never-ending stream of collectors on the streets of our towns under the pretence of charitable collections. Some of those, to say the least, are of very tender age. However, I shall not dwell on that point.

Personally, I regard the one-armed bandits as a menace, particularly in urban areas. I agree with the view expressed by the previous Minister for Justice that in tourist areas they are a form of harmless amusement in that they provide something for holidaymakers to do on a rainy day but, at the same time, they are an appalling nuisance. The Minister's predecessor mentioned that he was concerned about the amount of loitering in the places in which those machines are to be found.

It is my opinion that the law, as it stands, is not strict enough in regard to the premises in which those machines are located. It is not unusual to find those machines in premises situated on a busy main street where they present a difficulty to the smooth movement of people on the street. I do not know what the law is in regard to the types of premises in which those machines can be installed or, indeed, in regard to the type of machines used, but most of the ones I have seen are hideous and appalling-looking contraptions. The appearance of the premises, both inside and outside, is usually terrible.

A further difficulty is that of enforcing the regulation in regard to the age restriction. According to the law nobody under the age of 16 is allowed to operate one of those machines but, as was pointed out in the Dáil, it is almost impossible in these times to know whether a person is 14, 16 or 20. Of course, too, there is always the problem of a family of four or five seeking admission to those premises, two of whom may be 16 or 17 and the others 14 and younger. In such a case it would be difficult to know whether to allow the older ones in and to leave the younger ones out. There should be some regulation in regard to the number of machines that can be installed in any particular premises and as to the number of persons who are allowed into the premises at any one time. I do not know if there is any such regulation. If there is I stand corrected.

I should like to emphasise the necessity for bringing in comprehensive legislation to deal with what I can only describe as the menace of collections. I am not in any way being critical of collections for genuine charitable purposes but, unfortunately, many collections extend far beyond that field. It is obvious that this Bill is necessary. To some extent, it is a makeshift technical solution to the problem which must ultimately be dealt with by legislation of a much wider scope.

Ruairí Brugha

First of all, I, too, welcome the new Minister for Justice. I am glad of this amendment to section 10 of the Act which, I presume, was never meant to operate in the way in which it was decided by the court. There are a number of points I should like to stress.

From reading the Dáil debate on the Gaming and Lotteries Act it is evident that it was never intended to have those sort of businesses in heavily-populated areas. The problem in Dublin in this respect is very great. The Minister's predecessor referred in the Dáil to the age-level of those frequenting the premises in which those machines are installed. On several occasions I have had to make representations on behalf of the Dublin tourist region as to the condition of those establishments.

As pointed out by Senators Nash and Russell, the change-over to decimal currency will create a problem in so far as lotteries are concerned but there are even greater problems with which we must be concerned. In particular, there is the problem of what I would describe as semi-bogus charities. I know this problem has already been referred to. I was asked to make representations to the Minister's predecessor in relation to this problem. I did so but, of course, I am only speaking from a tourist point of view when I mention the damage that has been caused to the reputation of the country by this constant pestering of visitors. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at this problem and see what can be done. At any rate, I welcome the change in the Act.

Mr. Lyons

If I had my way I would not allow a slot-machine of any kind, whether paying in front or behind, to be introduced into this country. When I was a young man slot-machines were allowed, whether by law or not, on the main street of the town near where I lived. One day I went to town on a message with the large sum of a half-crown in my pocket. I saw this lovely slot-machine and I went into the shop and exchanged my half-crown for 30 pence. I stood in front of that lovely machine and inserted penny after penny until the whole 30 pence had disappeared. Then I stood looking at it. Along came a gentleman, a well-known character in the town, who stood nonchantly with his hands in his pockets, then inserted a penny into the machine and, bang-bang, he got the jackpot. I said to myself: "Slot-machines are out."

The point is that as far as the Bill is concerned you are allowing the type of machine which will not pay out direct to the person operating it but which will require a second person to pay the money. To my mind this makes no difference. Senator Ryan spoke about entertainment as against addiction. Anybody who plays the slot-machine will become an addict. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe there is any entertainment value whatsoever in slot-machines.

The Bill allows the licensing of machines under certain conditions. My opinion is that they should not be allowed in at all. Everybody knows what happened in Chicago and what is happening in many of the cities of America at the present moment where you have the A1 Capones operating those machines on the basis that they make millions. Once you get a licence to operate those machines the addicts come in, spend their hard earned money and then afterwards some of those other people come in to collect the money. It is possible to manipulate any machine. How are you to supervise those machines? How does the Minister think he will be able to supervise them? How can he supervise those who operate the machines from the point of view of age? Unless people carry their birth certificates with them it is impossible to tell a 16-year-old from a 30-year-old. Nobody is there to say whether the person is telling the truth. The same could apply if a garda asked somebody what age he was.

Those machines are not supposed to be operated in public houses. The law says that people under a certain age cannot be served with drink in public houses and consequently should not be there. Therefore, a public house is a place for adults. If you deny those machines to adults how can you bring them into public places where children of all ages will use them? I believe, in common with other speakers, that all the Gaming and Lotteries Acts should be gone into and modified. As far as this Bill is concerned the Minister would be wiser if he not alone repealed it but threw it out and introduced another Bill to ban those machines altogether.

Mr. Horgan

I should like to make a few brief remarks. There is one part of the Minister's speech which should not be allowed to go completely unchallenged. On the first page of his speech he says:

The main justification for this proposal was that the proprietors of amusement halls had invested substantial sums of money in the purchase and adaptation of these machines during the period when their use was allowed by the District Court and they thus had a very strong argument, based on established equities, for the restoration of the status quo.

We as a House of the Oireachtas and as a legislature should be very slow to allow this kind of equity to be established in this way. If you carry this thing to its logical conclusion you are forced into a situation in which, if anybody is to be out of pocket by the application of the law, the law must be changed so that he will not be out of pocket because he has spent a great deal of money. This should be very closely examined in a general way and also in a particular way in its relation to our whole approach to gambling and lottery. I detect in this Bill a sort of trend to permissiveness. People would perhaps think this is a rather unusual line for anybody on this side of the House to take.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Why?

Mr. Russell

Why this side of the House?

Mr. Horgan

In this House we are too often very uncritical in our attitude towards things like gambling. We should look, if we are serious about the many and varied claims which we make concerning the reunification of the country, to the very high moral purpose, perverted though it may be in certain instances, which informs the attitude of some of our northern brethren to the whole question of gambling. We do not pay enough attention to this.

We are wrong in the first place in allowing a great deal of the gambling that takes place. In the second place we are wrong by not taxing it adequately. If we were to examine this, if we were to examine the amount of money that is spent in pursuits of this kind, money which in all conscience passes the normal kind of small change operation which is envisaged in this kind of Bill, we would have a very different approach and a very different idea of the morality of spending money.

People talk in rather flatulent terms of public morality. In the south our public morality in terms of our approach to gambling, and in terms of the approach to gambling exemplified in this Bill, should be very seriously examined indeed. I would be very interested to hear, when the Minister is replying, whether he has considered the impact of this kind of legislation on the very large proportion of the population in the northern part of this island and whether he proposes to modify or otherwise change his attitude towards gambling legislation in the future on account of this.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator should have seen them posting their bags of pools coupons.

Mr. O'Malley

I should like to thank the Senators for their welcome of this Bill and also for their welcome to me personally and for their kind remarks.

The Bill, in this House as in the Dáil, has received general acceptance, but if I may make a few observations on some of the speeches which were made I would refer first to Senator O'Higgins when he said that he felt the Government might be going too far in this Bill in repealing section 10 altogether, and when he said that perhaps the reinstatement of the law as it was thought to be during the twelve-year period between the passing of the 1956 Act and the Supreme Court decision would have been adequate.

That was the original feeling of my predecessor, but as a result of the speeches of Deputy T. J. Fitzpatrick of Cavan and Deputy Pattison in the Dáil, and in particular Deputy Fitzpatrick's statement, reported in Volume 242, column 1619 of the Official Report:

"I think that pending that time the Minister should go a bit further here and permit the operation of machines which honestly and openly deliver the prize out of the front, because here we are really permitting the operation of these gaming machines but we are insisting that they be operated with the assistance of an attendant at the rear"

——it was as a result of statements of that nature in the Dáil that my predecessor saw fit to go a bit further and to repeal the section altogether rather than to amend it.

Mr. O'Higgins

So this is not the Bill that was introduced in the Dáil?

Mr. O'Malley

It is not. The Bill originally introduced in the Dáil by my predecessor provided what Deputy O'Higgins has suggested, but as a result of pressure from the Opposition benches my predecessor in the Dáil put down an amendment on Report Stage to meet their wishes and that is the form in which the Bill has been introduced here.

Mr. Russell

I think the Minister in the Dáil went further than Deputy Fitzpatrick wanted. That is my recollection of it from reading the Dáil reports of the debate.

Mr. O'Malley

I agree with what Deputies Fitzpatrick and Pattison suggested in the Dáil for the reason that it simplifies the matter. Any law that is unnecessarily complicated and difficult to enforce will bring all law into disrepute to some degree or another. Whatever else can be said about this Bill, it is clear-cut and, I think, sensible from that point of view.

A number of Senators referred to the fact that local authorities had a certain amount of control, and I think it was Senator O'Higgins who stated that apart from that there is very little other control. Before I deal with other controls, I think it might not be any harm to speak about the control the local authorities have under the 1956 Act. They had more or less absolute discretion as to whether to allow gaming in any part of their administrative areas. I think it was envisaged by the Oireachtas in the 1956 Act that local authorities would be selective in the sort of areas in respect of which they would make declarations, or whatever the appropriate word in the Act is.

Since 1956, local authorities have been anything but selective. Many of them gave approval in blanket fashion for their administrative areas. In that way they lost a great deal of the control which the 1956 Act would have given to them and this would have prevented the sort of development Senators and many people outside have complained about. One example frequently cited is the main street of this city which was regarded as one of the finest streets in Europe but which now cannot be regarded as being one of them. One of the contributing factors is the profusion of gaming establishments in O'Connell Street. Dublin Corporation would have had control of that situation if they had wished to exercise it.

Senator Russell said that it was frequently in main streets these premises were established. In every case that can only have been done with the approval of the local authority concerned, and I am afraid the local authority of which Senator Russell is a member of have allowed the establishment of one such premises in the main street in Limerick, a matter which I regret. However, I should point out to the House and to Senators who are members of local authorities that it is open to local authorities to rescind any decision they have made.

Mr. Russell

Is it a reserved function of local authorities?

Mr. O'Malley

I would not like to be definite on that but I think it is not.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think a resolution has to be passed by the local authority.

Mr. O'Malley

There is provision in the section to ensure that notice is given, that copies of notices are served on members. I should like to point out at this stage that in addition to the control the 1956 Act gave to local authorities, the district court also exercises considerable control. Senator Russell mentioned matters relating to these gaming establishments, such as the number of machines that would be allowed in any one of them and the type of premises in which this form of gaming be carried on. These are all matters which the district court takes cognisance of and in issuing its certificate, which is necessary before a licence can be obtained from the Revenue Commissioners, the district court can impose conditions relating to any or all of these topics which have given rise to these complaints.

A matter raised by a number of Senators, first by Senator Nash, was the sixpence maximum stake and the possibility of what could happen on the introduction of decimal currency. Senator Nash was of the opinion that the maximum stake would automatically be converted to six new pence which would be, perhaps, 1s 3d in present currency. That, of course, is not so. In the Decimal Currency Bill now before the Dáil, one of the schedules sets out in relation to statutory conversion of old currency to new, that any reference in any document, any Act, any formal legal document, to currency in the old form will be converted automatically to the corresponding amount set out in that schedule.

Therefore, there can be no question of the introduction to decimal currency resulting in an increase in real terms in the permissible stake. It will still be the equivalent of six old pence which, I think, represents 2½ new pence. Several Senators said they hoped no increase would be allowed by the conversion to decimal currency or otherwise. As far as I am concerned I readily give the strongest assurance to the House that in no circumstances would I countenance any increase in the maximum permitted stake above six old pence or the equivalent in decimal currency.

It is no harm that this statement should be made now because if pressure were to come from some of the people interested in these machines at a later stage, I should like to be able to refer to my statement to this effect at this time. If any converting has to be done to these machines as a result of the introduction of decimal currency, the people responsible had better start converting on the basis of new pence, either 2.4 pence or 4.8 pence, because I would not countenance, and I doubt if this House would countenance, any increase in the stake money above sixpence in present values.

Another point made by many Senators who readily saw the difficulty of enforcing it was the question of the age limit. It is very difficult for the proprietors of those gaming premises or for the Garda to be sure whether a person is 14, 15, 16 or 17 years of age. One could probably go a long way either side of these figures and still be in some doubt as to the correct age of the person. I think all concerned, and this applies to both proprietors and operators, should make every effort to prevent people about whose age they are in doubt from gaming on the premises or loitering in them. I will encourage the Garda to enforce this aspect of the law as best they can, although I readily realise their difficulties.

Senator Horgan took exception to a sentence in my opening remarks, presumably on a philosophical rather than on a practical basis. While he quoted one sentence of my speech I think he should have gone on to quote the next sentence because the next sentence cuts the ground from under his own argument.

Mr. Horgan

I am not a member of either Opposition party.

Mr. O'Malley

I am aware of that. The fact of the matter is that those people apparently pointed out to my predecessor that they had a very specialised type of machine which was designed to pay out from the back or pay through an attendant. They asked to be allowed to retain it and they have been allowed to retain it, although they are also able to use the more usual and easily obtained type of machine.

Reference was also made to this form of gaming on licensed premises. There is a specific section in the 1956 Act prohibiting this. I understand that due to the slightly doubtful state of the law on these matters in the last year or so some proprietors of licensed premises were foolish enough to install slot machines on their premises. I want to take this opportunity of pointing out that it is a serious offence to carry on this or any other form of gaming on their premises. In fact, under the 1956 Act it is an endorsable offence on their intoxicating liquor licence. This is something easily detectable and the Garda will have no hesitation in enforcing it fully.

I hope I have covered all the points made by Senators. I would once again like to thank them and to commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.