Control of Gaming: Motion.

Mr. Farrell

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes the need to review the Gaming and Lotteries Acts, 1956-1979 to ensure that proper control is maintained in the area of gaming.

I believe the 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Acts need to be updated. I do not know how, but I would hope that with a discussion here this week and next week we would come up with some ideas and views that would be of help to the Minister in drafting new legislation. Prior to 1956 we had the Gaming Act. There was a lot of tolerance in that Act. It was all right when the gaming machines were in seaside resorts for three months of the year and then closed down, or when they were at one-night roadshows and carnival entertainments where they had the old penny machines. There was no harm in them but in the mid-fifties it became a lucrative business. Big arcades were set up, operating seven days of the week over long hours.

The Government then introduced the 1956 Act, but that Act needs updating. A number of sections in that Act have already been challenged in the courts on various occasions and at present sections of the Act are being challenged in the High Court and the Supreme Court. For those reasons we need to do something to update the Acts. Originally the stakes were fixed at two-and-a-half old pence with a pay-out of 50p. Now we know those limits in many cases are exceeded. We should have a look at that. We should particularly look at Part III of the Act, because it authorises local authorities, county councils and corporations to decide whether an area should be included as a gaming area, and then you have to go to the courts. There seems to be duplication here: either the local authorities or the courts should handle the situation. I am not saying which; I am simply putting those ideas forward.

The Minister might also consider setting up a gaming board. Many people would say we should stop the whole gaming business altogether. People get emotional about it. Gaming of all kinds, whether it be horse racing or dog racing, can generate emotion and can be addictive. All gaming seems to be addictive. Anything people get seriously interested in, whether it is going to a football match on a Sunday or playing a game of golf, can become addictive. But gaming seems to be a very intensive addiction. Perhaps people may say it should be abolished but I would not think that would be right. If we were to try to get rid of all the vices in our society, we would have a worse society, because those things would be run illegally and behind locked doors and the aims we would try to achieve would not be achieved. Therefore, we cannot abolish it, but we should control it and put tighter constraints on it.

This brings me to the gaming boards in England and Northern Ireland which work very successfully, I understand. Perhaps it might be wise to have a look at how they work, and see if we can learn something from their experiences and see if they have as big a problem as we have. As one who does not gamble but who visits towns in England and Ireland from time to time, I see there a greater number of gaming machines in shops, pubs and clubs. I do not know how they control them. It might be wise to see how the gaming boards deal with gambling in England and Northern Ireland.

According to media reports it would appear that our law is being violated, bypassed and flouted in many ways; but it is difficult to get evidence to prove that. The Garda are doing their best to check on all those things but it is very difficult to get evidence to stand up in court. You have to be positive that you have got a case. With modern technology you can have machines playing illegally and, when they see a garda coming in, with one flick of a switch in a certain location they can switch all the machines back to being within the law. It is difficult to deal with all those electronic gadgets and technology. I do not envy the Minister when he tries to amend the law; he will have a difficult job.

We must look at the nature of the machines. Nowadays there are machines where people do not spend money but yet lose a lot of money. They can buy credits and they win credits. They recash their credits. In that way there is a question as to whether they are violating the law, but they are achieving the same aims. This is an aspect of the law that will have to be examined. Gaming is a problem for some people but, on the other hand, if we did not have gaming machines it would not stop anyway. We have only to look at the liquor business. They still make the old drop of mountain dew and many people would tell you that if it was licensed there would be less abuse. You will not stop it so the only thing you can do is to control it. I would much prefer to see it run under controlled rules and regulations than to force it underground, which would be a very serious situation.

The seaside would be a very dull place if there were no fun machines. In Sligo there is gaming in a very limited way in the seaside resort of Enniscrone and it is rigorously controlled but gaming machines are not allowed in Rosses Point, Mullaghmore or Strandhill. Unfortunately, we do not get the volume of tourist because no matter how we condemn gaming, from a tourist point of view, if there is a wet day the people from Mullaghmore will go to Bundoran because there is something for the children to do there. You do need something to liven up a seaside resort and gaming machines have been part and parcel of seaside resorts. Unfortunately, when it became big business and ran all year round it became a problem, indeed a bit of a menace. There should be some way that we could have fun machines but very tight controls. Only over 16s are allowed into arcades but any child can go in and play a fun machine and it is very hard to determine whether they are in the archade for gaming or to play the fun machines. Fun machines should be in a separate area from gaming machines so that children could drive their fun cars, tractors or bicycles. If the gaming machines were in an entirely different place the children would have no excuse for going in which would help to control the situation.

We all remember being at the seaside when our children were small. It would have been very dull for the children if they had to sit playing with sand all day and then come home and go to bed. However, in the evenings they could go into the amusement arcade and spend a few pence playing the machines. They never made money and their parents were the poorer for it but there is no point in bringing children on a holiday if you do not give them a holiday. You cannot have home rules and tough rules on holidays. If you go with a family on holidays you should make the holiday enjoyable to them and make a few sacrifices yourself because that is the way it should be. Tourist and seaside areas would be very dull if there were not arcades with fun machines and such type of entertainment because children get great enjoyment from driving cars et cetra in these arcades. All these things are part and parcel of what children like on holidays and I would not like to see that type of entertainment taken from them.

The 1956 Act allowed for only £10,000 to be paid out on national draws. This is covered by the Gaming Act. In 1956, £10,000 was a lot of money but that sum should now be updated as people running that type of draw have to send evidence each week by way of the winning ticket to the Garda authorities that they paid out only £10,000. I do not think the Garda want to handle all these things. Perhaps they could do spot checks. It is a waste of time for all concerned. A sum of £10,000 was a lot in 1956 but it is not very much today. There may be other such figures within the Act which I did not notice which may also need to be looked at. Amendments and changes could tighten the gaming laws. It is difficult fully to control the gaming laws but I hope that when the Minister updates the 1956 Gaming Act he will bring in water-tight legislation. The £10,000 and other prizes should be updated as they are irrelevant today. People get around the law by putting in five ten penny pieces to spin the wheel or pull the lever. The Minister should meet casino operators and owners and get their views because most of them wish to run their business strictly within the law. There are unscrupulous people in all businesses. Some pubs would stay open until morning to sell drink but others have very strict rules and regulations. It would not be right to take this business away from people who have been in it for years but we should look at it in a new light and bring in the necessary checks and balances. I know it will not be easy but the debate in this House will assist the Minister in drafting legislation which will be 100 per cent water-tight.

Mr. S. Haughey

I formally second the motion that Seanad Éireann notes the need to review the Gaming and Lotteries Acts, 1956-1979 to ensure that proper control is maintained in the area of gaming. As Senators will be aware, local authorities throughout the country now have the power to adopt or rescind Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. Indeed, some local authorities have already rescinded the adoption of Part III of the Act. I understand that some local authorities in County Donegal have done so or certainly it is under discussion with particular regard to Donegal. Senators will be aware that Dublin City Council have also rescinded the adoption of Part III of the Act and this has done in January 1986. This action was taken after a long hard-fought debate with intense lobbying from both sides by local authority members. Indeed, some of the lobbying was unfortunate and became particularly intense.

However, the city council in their wisdom eventually decide to rescind the adoption of the Act and I, as a member of Dublin City Council, supported that decision. It was supported in the chamber by the Fianna Fáil alderman and councillors and since then has won widespread support in the community in general. It has won the support of many members of the Catholic Church and many residents' and tenants' associations. Indeed in more recent times we have had delegations from the Irish Countrywomen's Association to our chamber to congratulate us on our decision. I believe it was the right decision and I am glad I supported it. As I have said, other local authorities are now considering this issue.

Senators will no doubt be aware that Dublin County Council are now about to discuss this issue and take a decision on it. I understand that decision will be taken on 28 April this year. So, it is a very timely and lively debate and I am delighted to second the motion. I am also satisfied, while the city council took the right decision — I refer to Dublin City Council that the ban should remain, while the existing legislation remains in place, we have an obligation to work the existing legislation and while the current situation is governed by the Gaming and Lotteries Acts, 1956, this ban should remain in place in Dublin city for many reasons. I have no doubt that Senators are aware of many of these reasons. Gaming machines cause widespread hardship and suffering in many cases and cause misery for certain people, particularly young people. That is an area where gaming needs to be looked at very carefully, particularly in relation to the whole area of addiction.

Addiction among young people with regard to these machines is a very serious situation and there is no doubt that these gaming machines represent the worst form of gambling. It is different from other forms of gambling. You can lose a lot of money in a very short space of time in gaming machines and that is what makes them different from other forms of gambling. You can become addicted to this form of gambling more quickly than to any other form. We are dealing with a very particular and difficult situation. There is no doubt also that the machines are fixed and loaded in favour of the owners rather than the users of the machines. The simple fact, and nobody would deny this, is that in the long term the user cannot win on these machines, the odds are stacked against the user and the regular user has to lose when playing these machines.

There is also the problem with regard to young people stealing to feed their addiction habit. That must cause social problems in certain areas of the country and it is a matter that needs to be looked at. The media in general have highlighted many different situations with regard to these gaming machines. There is documented evidence to show that on some occasions the entire social welfare packet of some people is fed into these machines within the space of one hour. These situations do occur — I just do not know how regularly — they must be examined very carefully and tackled.

Another reason that Dublin city took the decision to rescind the adoption of Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act is with regard to O'Connell Street. The premier street in the capital city had become a honky tonk street because of the proliferation of gaming arcades on it. There was a general desire that O'Connell Street should be improved and that that situation was not good enough for the premier street.

I was personally involved in a campaign in the Darndale area of Dublin which has very particular problems. There was an application about two years ago for a gaming licence by a particular snooker hall owner in a premises adjacent to Darndale. A campaign was launched to prevent gaming machines being provided in this building because of the serious social consequences which it would have had. Every organisation and every towns and residents group in the Darndale area got together to tackle the situation and to ensure that this socially undesirable building would not be provided for the purposes of gambling. In fact we succeeded, with the help of the city councillors, in having the ban on gaming in the city area extended to new areas of the city which had come into the administrative area of Dublin Corporation after the original decision of Dublin City Council in January 1986. There was no doubt that the people of Darndale breathed a sigh of relief when that battle was won. It is just a particular case in point which is helpful in illustrating that gaming in particular areas of the country and city is totally undesirable.

The ban on gaming machines where it exists at the moment is being flouted on a large scale, according to media reports. This has happened since the Supreme Court decision of April 1988 which laid down the law with regard to the power of local authorities to ban gaming machines. The Garda now have a major role to play in the enforcement of the law. It is a great new challenge to the Garda and one which they will have to face up to. I appeal to the Garda to take tough action now that the law has become clear and to prosecute those people who are breaking it. Other people also have a role to play. The general public have a responsibility to report to the Garda places where they know that the law is being flouted because the Garda have to rely on reports and information that they are given. I also appeal to the Minister for Justice to ensure that the Garda are encouraged to take the decision to uphold the law and to give them every encouragement in that regard.

Having said all that, I am a realist and know that something has to be done in this situation. As I said, local authorities in many areas have rescinded the adoption of Part III of the Act in an attempt to bring about new legislation in this regard. One of the major reasons I supported the ban in Dublin City Council is that new legislation is needed and this was one way in which local authorities could make known their views about new legislation which they wanted with regard to gaming and lotteries.

There is no doubt now that there are major anomalies both within counties and between counties and that situation is totally unsatisfactory. Some areas have the ban and other areas do not. It is not suitable in an Irish context to have different laws and different regulations both within counties and between counties. The demand now is as stated in the motion, that new legislation is necessary. At the end of the day, and although this is difficult for me to say, the power will have to be taken away from the local authorities. It is one of the few powers local authorities have but national Government must now step in.

It is very difficult task for the Minister for Justice to bring forward new legislation on this issue and I wish him well. It will be a very difficult task; I suspect he is thinking of bringing in new legislation and I hope that he takes on board the contents of this motion. While I very much dislike to see gaming machines allowed, particularly in parts of Dublin and other urban areas, I recognise the fact that a case can be made for these machines in other areas of the country. Indeed Senator Farrell referred to holiday resorts and most sensible people believe that there is a case for gaming machines in holiday resorts and such places. That is just one example. We have to have a very careful balance of the areas where we want to see gaming. I hope that this matter is dealt with in the new legislation.

Any new legislation will have to be examined very carefully by Members of the Oireachtas and all interested groups. If and when new laws are brought forward, the need for proper control is absolutely essential. Tough controls and regulations are needed in regard to many issues. The whole area of designation needs to be looked at very carefully and where exactly we want to see gaming machines operating, if indeed we want to see them anywhere. At the end of the day a case will be made to have gaming machines operating in certain areas and the whole question of designation will have to be looked at.

The whole area of age will need to be examined carefully. At what age do we want to see people using gaming machines? The question of a licensing system and opening times will also need to be looked at in some detail. When should they be allowed to open and what times should they be allowed to do business? That is very important and needs to be examined very carefully. The winnings which will be allowed and how the machines are loaded will need to be looked at from the point of view of bringing in tough regulations and tough controls.

I have no doubt that the Minister has a very difficult task. He has a fine balancing act to perform and I wish him well. New legislation is necessary, as the motion said and strict control is necessary. In the meantime we have to operate the current legislation and the current law as it has been decided in the Supreme Court. The bans that have already been declared have to remain in existence and enforced because once a law is passed it must be enforced. We should enforce the current legislation but look forward also to new legislation in this very difficult area.

Mr. Doyle

I am disappointed — with no disrespect to the Minister, Deputy McCarthy, that the Minister for Justice is not here tonight to listen to this debate because it is very obvious from what Senator Haughey said that the Minister is preparing legislation to deal with this problem. He will certainly have a very difficult task in preparing this legislation because Senator Farrell and Senator Haughey have made a great case against gaming machines.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Doyle

Senator Farrell spoke of addiction and that is the first thing we should address because some people become addicted to gambling of all kinds, horse racing, greyhound racing and slot machines. Why do some people become addicted? Usually it is because they suffer from a personality defect and they use the form of addiction of gambling or drinking or whatever as an escape. Once they get hooked on it they are in a very serious situation. Of all addictions, the most potent seems to be the gaming machines because they catch people from a very young age which can have very serious problems, as outlined by Senator Haughey. They can steal and do a lot of anti-social things to get money to feed the habit and, as we know in Dublin, there was a tragic case where a young man took his life because of this problem.

People with an addiction can receive help and there are organisations which cater for them. They have to overcome a defect of personality and in doing so they can build on a foundation for life of a stronger personality which allows them to avoid the temptation of the addiction in the past.

Senator Haughey mentioned Dublin Corporation having designated areas zoned for gambling. It was our policy in the past to do that and the extraordinary thing was that we had hoped to succeed in achieving it. Every applicant has to apply for planning permission to the local authority and for a certificate to the courts. A judge in the Dublin District Court, who was a licensing judge for many years, took the view that an applicant approaching him for a certificate and who had not got planning permission, should be rejected. It was our policy in Dublin Corporation after a certain stage not to grant planning permissions for these premises because basically the problem had spread not from the middle areas of the city where we hoped to curtail it but to the residential areas of the city next to schools and it became a real problem for young children and a great anxiety for parents. I remember going to the courts on many occasions and opposing an application but then that particular judge resigned and he was replaced by a new licensing justice in the District Court.

I well remember the day when a senior counsel and he had a legal argument about the fact that the planning function was a matter for the local authority——

Mr. Norris

Without wishing to interrupt Senator Doyle, I wish to enter a point of order. I would simply like to place on the record of the House the fact that the distinction between the inner city and residential areas in the inner city——

An Cathaoirleach

I do not think that is a point of order.

Mr. Norris

Right.

Mr. Doyle

The basis of the legal argument was that planning permission was a matter for the local authority and that the judicial function was the granting of a certificate. Even if they did not have planning permission, the justice felt they were entitled to a certificate. Certificates were given out over a period of time like confetti and it cause a real problem. That was one of the issues that brought the matter before Dublin City Council where the city council, after the passing of the Act in 1956, adopted the Act but then rescinded it. That decision was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court as Senator Haughey said.

It is very interesting to look at the decision of the Supreme Court because they came out very strongly in favour of the decision of Dublin Corporation, that members of the city council thought they were acting quite legally within the Act. We have to look at the existing situation.

Gaming is now illegal in Dublin. That being the case it should be free of gaming centres but recently, following good investigative journalism, the Evening Herald, highlighted the fact that a number of gaming centres are still in existence in Dublin. I ask the Minister for Justice to outline what steps the Garda are taking in enforcing the law. Have any of these machines been confiscated? We are asking here tonight that the enforcement of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 be reviewed. If we cannot enforce the legislation that we have, how are we to enforce some new Act? Is it not possible to enforce that kind of mechanism? Is it beyond the Garda and everybody else to do so. They are not doing it at present.

I have been shocked by the response of the public to the banning of gaming in Dublin. As Senator Haughey pointed out, a number of people have said that this is the kind of society they want. It is very important that we recognise that but I do not think we can back-track now. I have not always held this view, rather I have been converted to it. I once held the view that abolition was not the solution to the problem. I was worried about the addicts and I knew that if the problem went underground then the addicts would be more vulnerable. They had some protection under the law when gaming was legal but they have no protection whatsoever now that it is illegal. For that reason I ask the Minister for Justice to enforce the law as it stands, to close all the gaming halls in Dublin and confiscate the machines. I hope he will respond to this request next week and outline the up-to-date position.

It has been proposed — Senators Haughey and Farrell mentioned this — that a gaming board be set-up. What would that mean? It would mean taking from a local authority their functions under Part III of the Act and giving them to a gaming board. To whom would a gaming board be responsible? To whom would they be answerable? At least, a local authority are answerable to the electorate. Also, they have the interests of the community in mind. The setting up of a gaming board is an option the Minister should consider.

Nevertheless, even if a gaming board were set up and given strong powers, including the power to decide on the location of a premises, power to ensure that premises were of a high standard and well maintained, power to control and remove certificates at any time, power to inspect machines, power to stipulate that the minimum pay-out should not be below 90 per cent, power to set the age limit at 18 years and the power to set the maximum and minimum stakes to be won, I would still believe — Senators Haughey and Farrell have made the case — that it would be impossible to enforce that kind of system. For that reason I ask the Minister to review the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 with a view to banning gaming on these gaming machines because it is in the public interest to do so.

Finally, the County Dublin amusement proprietors have requested that a public inquiry be held on this issue. I would welcome the holding of such a public inquiry because it would settle the matter once and for all.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Apr 1989

Control of Gaming: Motion.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1989