Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Apr 1989

Vol. 122 No. 12

Control of Gaming: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following 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.

—(Senator Farrell.)

Mr. McGowan

I have added my name to this motion. I have discussed this matter with the Minister for Justice on a number of occasions. I believe the Government will welcome the motion and accept this debate and Members' contributions as indication of public feeling on this matter. The Government must engage in a review of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 and its anomalous provisions must be examined carefully.

My county, in particular, has come in for a lot of criticism. We have had our difficulties. The time has come for the Government to legislate and take control over the whole area of gaming. It is a very serious matter. The problems must be addressed. The unfair criticism by the national media has done a serious injustice to my county. It is my belief that the provisions of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts are abused no more in Donegal than in any other part of the country. I do not know why we have more gaming machines per head of population in County Donegal. However, this is not merely a local, parochial, regional matter, it is a national one that must be addressed.

I have stated on a number of occasions that local authorities are left with the responsibility of implementing the provisions of the Act or declining to do so, which subjects their members to much unnecessary pressure. It is also my belief that positive action taken to remove that responsibility from members of local authorities — particularly in determining prospective business — would be much welcomed by them. The subject has been raised at my local council on a number of occasions and has been extensively discussed.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McGowan we must be careful here because, as you are aware being a member of Donegal County Council, that matter is before the courts and is sub judice. I say that for your guidance.

Mr. McGowan

I appreciate the Cathaoirleach's guidance in the matter. I will endeavour not to infringe on any areas which might be subject to litigation or court proceedings.

Most people know there is much genuine concern in the country about addiction to gaming. I believe and accept totally that it is possible to be addicted, to be gambling money that should be expended on the provision of food and general housekeeping needs. I have been a member of a local authority that has been subject to pressure from organised groups known as the anti-gaming lobby. I could not accept that in all cases their intentions were crystal clear or absolutely pure. In one particular case an anti-gaming lobby was headed by somebody who had himself tried very hard to get established, who subsequently took up the cudgel as an anti-gaming leader having been unsuccessful in acquiring suitable premises. That is the kind of practice that must be abolished on the part of local pressure groups.

When we are now adopting and conforming to so much European legislation it is only right and proper that the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 should be reconsidered in the light of our membership of the EC, so that our future laws and regulations are in harmony with those prevailing in Britain, the North of Ireland and generally in Europe. The provisions of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 are totally out of date. We are in a totally different league in this respect. No matter which aspect of the problem one examines, one sees there is clear evidence of the need for change. I urge the Minister to urgently re-examine the whole gambling scene, not to confine that re-examination to the Gaming and Lotteries Act only but to scrutinise those areas in which there must be legislative control.

Like other Senators I have had correspondence and requests from a firm of solicitors who represent the gaming and amusement arcades. They requested the establishment of a public inquiry into the matter and said:

We are quite certain that the industry will be overwhelmingly vindicated by such a public inquiry.

I would never support such a public inquiry. There are all kinds of groups who are dissatisfied, who are not part of the legislative system, who want inquiries, who want to break down all of the administrative and procedural structures of democracy. Therefore, I would be bitterly opposed to those who would seek the establishment of such a public inquiry on this matter. I believe that is the responsibility of Government. I have no doubt the Government will welcome the opportunity to respond to the discussion of this motion and that there will emerge improved legislation. I am confident that will be the outcome.

The solicitor, writing on behalf of the association, says that the plain truth is that the vast majority — over 90 per cent — of those who play gaming machines are moderate gamblers spending less per day than the cost of a pint or a packet of cigarettes. That may be true. I would be inclined to the view that it is correct. Nevertheless there is clear evidence of abuse. That abuse can be measured only under the provisions of new legislation. I strongly urge positive action on the part of the Minister for Justice and the Government in formulating legislation covering every aspect of gaming, bearing in mind conditions prevailing, the pressures there are on people to pay rent and other essentials. Unfortunately, nearly always the poorer sections of our community are most affected by the abuses of and addiction to gaming.

The Association of Gaming and Amusement Arcades cannot complain any more than any other section of the community if the legislation governing the licensing of their business is reviewed by Government. I have no doubt that the Government will be fair to those engaged in any business. There is need to examine that legislation constructively in the light of the Single European Act and the advent of 1992. It will be important legislation to which, I predict, members of local authorities will not want to be party.

It has reached the ridiculous stage when one elected member of a local authority, in Donegal voted for the adoption of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 at an urban council meeting in Bundoran and very shortly thereafter the same member attended a meeting of Donegal County Council and voted that they should not adopt its provisions. It is ridiculous that gaming and lottery activities can remain uncontrolled in Bundoran, Letterkenny and other urban towns while a different law prevails in the rest of the county. I understand the same situation obtains in Dublin city and county. Therefore, the argument for the revision of the current legislation is well understood and well-proven. I would ask the Minister to carry out such review in the short term. Hopefully, he will move an amendment when we will have an opportunity of representing the various interests and from which will emerge constructive legislation.

Mr. Manning

I have no difficulty in supporting this motion. The legislation it seeks to have reviewed is legislation which simply has not worked over a very long period. There is a great deal of urgency about this review. I would hope that when this motion is passed here this evening — as I am sure it will be — the Minister will take this as an indication of the concern felt on all sides of the House; that he will set about a review leading to a constructive conclusion and will do so with the greatest possible speed.

As other speakers noted last week, and as some of the speeches reflected, there is a great deal of emotion on this subject. I have to say that much of the emotion surrounding it is well deserved. However, I must say also that some of it has been spurious, some of it has been politically motivated or motivated by the desire to seek headlines; frankly, some of it has been exploitative, has sought to exploit addiction, has sought to exploit circumstances rendered worse by this type of exploitation.

Having said that, I must say very emphatically that much of the bad publicity which has surrounded the gaming industry has been well deserved. It has been well deserved for a number of reasons, partly because over the years sections of the gaming industry have been greedy, unscrupulous, have sought to evade even the minimal restrictions which legislation sought to place on them. They have not come straight with the law, they have not been straight with the public and have shown a degree of social irresponsibility difficult to match in our society. In addition, the industry itself has shown little readiness, as a whole — there may well be sections of it which are responsible — to monitor its affairs, to take sanctions against those who transgress or indeed to attempt to bring these people to the notice of the authorities. The industry has taken a very long time to come up with its proposals for reform. The question has to be asked, had there not been so much of the publicity of recent years would proposals have been forthcoming at all? The industry lived in a very cosy position in which it was, to a large extent cut off from the rest of society. However, the industry has been disturbed out of its comfortable position in recent years.

There are many responsible people in the industry. There are many legitimate jobs in the industry but to any fair-minded person, looking in from outside, it is obvious it has taken the furore of recent times to galvanise the responsible section of the industry into action. Certainly it is not an industry which can take any great pride either in its role or its history over the past number of years, especially in its record of self-policing.

We now find ourselves in circumstances in which public opinion — in some cases exploited, in some cases manipulated — reflects a genuinely-felt conviction among very many people that something is wrong in this industry. We have now reached a stage at which choices have to be made and hard decisions taken. There is a strongly held view in the country that a blanket ban on all types of gaming machines is what is needed. This is a view in a case which is very easy to make, a case which will find many powerful supporters throughout the community. It will be fuelled and fed — as it was quite recently — by the well-publicised experiences of those who have been the victims of gaming. It will be supported by those who see it as an easy political issue on which they can capitalise. However it will be supported also by many people who genuinely believe that this is what is needed to tackle a problem that is all too obvious.

I would strongly oppose that line for a number of reasons. I would oppose it, first of all, because on a purely philosophical basis I believe the right to choose what one does with one's recreation, with one's disposable income, is a right which this House should not curtail to the extent of abolishing it completely. I would take the same view that drink is liable to abuse. That does not mean that we should seek to prohibit drink but we regulate it, we decide the hours in which drink can be taken, we determine the conditions, the sort of people who are fit to serve drink and those who are fit to get drink. It is the same with tobacco. Tobacco has very deleterious consequences. I remember being a fairly lonely voice in this House during the Tobacco Bill debate before Christmas when I argued very strongly against some of the sanctions on smoking which have now become law. Perhaps I was wrong but I felt this was too great an intrusion into the right to choose. It is the same on other issues. For example, on the right to divorce I have argued passionately that this is a right which people should have, they are not obliged to exercise it but at least it is a right which they should have, the right to choose. It is something which, as far as possible in a democratic society, should not be curtailed so long as it is not in conflict with the common good. I am afraid, that is the balance we must strike in all of this.

The second reason I consider that blanket sanctions, a blanket banning of gaming, would not be wise is that I believe it would be unenforceable. On different issues in the past we have seen prohibitions applied in every area of life. Where a total prohibition has been applied inevitably the end result has been that people through various imaginative means, have found ways around it. Inevitably they use their imagination to frustrate the intentions of the legislators. Much worse that that, total banks, total prohibitions, almost certainly drive underground the activities we are describing. They would drive them totally into the arms of criminals, putting them totally under the control of criminals with the result that the far from satisfactory position obtaining would become infinitely worse. For that reason a total prohibition on gaming would lead to a worse situation when whatever element of control there is at present — whatever element of control there should be which is far greater than obtains at present — would become an impossibility.

Before saying what I would like to see done I should like to deal with the point made by Senator McGowan, that is, the role of local authorities in this issue. As a member of a local authority I am not at all persuaded that local authorities are the best groups to judge such cases. Very often local authorities are subject to a variety of pressures to which an independent board is not subjected. It can be legitimately said, that members of a local authority frequently will have a better on-the-ground awareness of the consequences of particular circumstances. I would hope that in a case of regulation this awareness, this local knowledge and local concern, would be capable of being transmitted to those who will take the decisions.

My experience has not persuaded me that the atmosphere surrounding these decisions is the calm, objective atmosphere which one would like to see such decisions taken. I am not convinced that the pressures often brought to bear on councillors in such cases lead to the best decisions. Indeed, I was struck on my local council by the irony of one group arguing very strongly for the banning of gaming machines in clubs while another part of the same organisation was profiting from the existence of such clubs in a different part of the country. There can be a degree of hypocrisy and playing to the gallery in all of this.

I support the motion this evening. I very much want to see an immediate, thorough review of the workings of the 1956 Act. I would like to see an inquiry, not necessarily a public sworn inquiry, but an inquiry into the operations of that Act and into the effects of the current position on the general public here. I would like to see it done by trained people away from the emotion and publicity which has surrounded the issue up to now. I believe there is a great deal to be said for a thorough reform, for new rules, which can be enforced. One of the great Irish problems in so many areas is that while we are extremely good at making rules and regulations, we are very bad at enforcing them. We can see it in virtually every area of Irish life where the laws are there, whether it be dog licences, with regard to emission of noxious fumes for motor vehicles, safety standards in cars, whatever the subject frequently legislation does exist but what is absent is the means or the will to enforce it.

Whatever we do this evening, we must send a message to the Minister that whatever changes are brought about must have the full sanction of enforceability behind them. Otherwise we might as well go for the worst option of all which is the total ban on gaming activities.

There is a great deal of merit in the proposal of one section of industry for the establishment of a gaming board which would have full control over the industry. It must be a gaming board with very real powers, a gaming board which has a definite length of time within which to sort out the problem. It must have the sanction of a total ban hanging over it. I would like to see such a gaming board having general powers of supervision in relation to all aspects of gaming and lotteries, including newspaper lotteries. I would like to see it having the right to issue licences in respect of all premises and persons engaged in the manufacture — which is a major problem — the distribution and the operation of all gaming and amusement machines. I would like to see the conditions applicable to all of these determined by such a board. It must have the power to revoke such licences and to determine the procedure for revocation and penalties.

It must have the power to determine the suitability of those who engage in gaming, of those who run gaming arcades or machines. This is a major problem because there is no doubt whatsoever that many of the people who are engaged in the gaming industry at present have a whiff of criminality about them. This makes it extremely difficult for those who want to run a responsible industry to get their point across. The gaming board, as I would envisage it, would have very strict powers to determine the suitability of those who can engage in these activities. It would issue enforceable guidelines on age limits, on the amounts to be paid out, on the margins of profit and so forth in all aspects of gaming.

I envisage this gaming board having its own inspectorate, paid for by the gaming industry, but nonetheless an independent inspectorate of sufficient numbers and quality to ensure that everything in the house was being kept in order. I would envisage such a board being directly accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Minister for Justice, that it would not be just another independent quango out there. It would be a board which would have to furnish an annual report to the Houses of the Oireachtas, which would be answerable to the Minister for Justice and which would have at its head a person of sufficient credibility and stature to ensure that its activities would be generally accepted by the general public.

I believe we are at a crossroads as far as the whole question of gaming is concerned. The reason I support this motion tonight is that I believe there is a duty on Government — and it is a duty where I believe the Minister is anxious to give the lead at this time — to ensure that there will be a hard, detailed, searching examination of the industry and current legislation. Having done that, the Government must then come back to us and tell us whether in their considered view they would favour a total ban, as many people advocate, or whether they believe the industry can be policed, put in order, can be made acceptable, the abuses ruled out, having established that only those who are fit and proper to do so be allowed to operate in the industry.

My view, as I have made very clear, would fall very heavily in the latter category. I should like to see this motion going through this evening. I would like to have an earnest from the Minister of his sense of urgency, of the wide-ranging review he would like to see take place, perhaps also of the type of machinery he would like to see in place so that this problem can be faced up to once and for all, so that those who are not fit to be in the industry are driven out of it, and kept out of it, and those who want to run it honestly are given the opportunity to do so within firm and definite legislation.

Mr. Lydon

I wish to support this motion because I would like to see the Gaming and Lotteries Acts reviewed and updated. I have had a lot of correspondence from people on this particular issue, especially in reference to gaming machines or slot machines. I would like to see these machines banned completely.

The reason I would like to see this is because of the highly addictive nature of these machines. Studies have shown that if a gambler continually wins he, believe it or not, soon becomes bored, because the thrill for the gambler is not in the winning but in beating the system. Again, if he continually loses he will soon give up. The only way he will continue to gamble is if he is reinforced and this is precisely what happens with these machines. The gambler is subjected to a very powerful form of reinforcement, namely, intermittent reinforcement. He wins occasionally, just enough to keep him hopeful. He keeps hoping the next one will be the jackpot. The operators of these machines admit to these machines being stacked in favour of the owners, sometimes as high as 85 per cent for owners, 15 per cent for the punter.

Another of my arguments is that the difference between gambling on machines as opposed to other forms of gambling is that the element of chance has been almost removed completely. In other words, the gambler cannot possibly win, he must, if he continues to gamble, eventually lose. It has been suggested, that if the gaming machines were banned it would be hypocritical of us not to ban all forms of gambling. This is not so, because of the reasons I have just stated — the removal of the element of chance. If a person bets on a horse race he can either lose or win. Similarly in a card game, depending on the turn of a card he may either lose or win. However, with gaming machines the odds are mechanically or electronically fixed so that ultimately the gambler must lose.

Because of the enormous scope for profits, the operators of these machines can mount publicity campaigns favouring their retention. They can employ professional lobbyists who can issue statements quoting from statistical studies and also quoting selectively from such items as the letter on travelling people issued by His Grace, the Archbishop of Dublin. However, the huge profits that are made in this area are very rarely mentioned.

I agree with Senator McGowan and Senator Manning that the whole area of this decision-making process must be removed from the hands of local representatives, who come under such pressures, and should be ultimately in the hands of the Government or of the Department of Justice. It has also been suggested that certain areas of the city or county perhaps should be designated as an area in which these machines would be permitted, where they can be carefully monitored. This simply will not work.

I have seen such an experiment in New Jersey, where gaming is permitted in Atlantic City. What has happened? Well, the same as here. Most people go and visit. There are ten shows. They just lose a few dollars on the slots and go home. That is the acceptable side but there is another side to the enterprise which is not publicised. Every week I have seen busloads of old age pensioners, brought free of charge from as far away sometimes as New York city down to Atlantic City, where they are given a free meal and then are admitted to the casinos. These poor unfortunates go home broke. It is a sad, sick scene and I should hate to see this experiment repeated here. Also in these casinos people are given free drink as long as they gamble. They can watch free shows; they are given free meals.

The Minister is, I am sure, well aware of the great potential that exists for organised crime to take control of this type of industry, just as happened in the USA and, I understand, to some extent in the UK. I ask the Minister to bring in legislation banning these machines and I feel certain that such legislation will get easy passage in both House and very probably all-party support.

The Minister, during the present session alone, has introduced a very considerable body of progressive legislation. I would ask you to look carefully at this whole area and, particularly, to remove from local representatives the decision as to the licensing or otherwise of these addictive machines. The very minimum I would like to see is a complete review by the Government or the Department of Justice of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts, 1956 to 1979.

It has been said — and I have been lobbied on this — that many jobs will be lost in this industry. That may be so, and nobody would like to see that; but I just cannot believe that these machines are good for anybody in particular because of the removal of the element of chance. If there was a fifty-fifty chance than I would say "go ahead", but when it is both mechanically and electronically stacked against the punter, then I would say that these machines are not good for anybody at all. It has been said too that they are needed for some holiday resorts, that people would not go there if these things were not available. Frankly, that is an argument I do not accept either. However, I am willing to listen to what the Minister has to say and I look forward to his speech later on. I have made my point. That is all I have to say on the matter at the moment.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the fact that the Seanad has decided to discuss this matter. I have got just a small number of points to make on it. It seems to me that the principal philosophical area for debate here runs along the lines of a conflict between individual freedoms on the one hand and the wider welfare of the community on the other. This is why I feel strongly that there is a need for some severe restraint on the operation of gambling machines. It is not simply a question of the individual and his right to enjoy freedom of expression. It seems to me that the idea that an individual should be able to indulge himself or herself is limited by a particular factor and that factor is damage to the community at large. There is no question of doubt whatever in my mind that the provision of electronic gambling facilities, particularly using television screens, one-armed bandits and all these sort of things have a seriously detrimental effect.

It may surprise Members of the House to hear me say this because I am very much a proponent of the rights of the individual. But I have direct and personal contact with this problem from a number of people who have been placed in serious jeopardy by virtue of their addiction to the quite simple forms of gambling, so that I am aware of this problem at first hand and of the heartbreak it brings to the most vulnerable areas of society.

It also leads to a further radiation of anti-social behaviour. For example, I am aware of a number of enterprises in the city of Dublin, including, for example, the operation of the national bus service, where people who are placed in possession of fairly sizeable quantities of cash in the form of coins find themselves becoming addicted to gambling. Because many of these gambling dens are placed close to bus stops and termini, they are put in a situation of temptation. It is a situation which, I am sure, CIE, which is a very responsible body, or Bus Éireann, as I understand it is now, will confirm that this problem does exist. I am not pointing the finger at this particular profession and suggesting that bus conductors are naturally dishonest or anything like that but they are placed in the way of temptation and I am certainly aware of a situation where gambling by operatives of Bus Éireann has led to serious problems psychologically and in terms of theft from the company in order to sustain this gambling habit. This clearly is, as I would describe it, a further radiation, an escalation of anti-social behaviour. It means we are not just allowing an individual the right to damage himself or herself; we are tolerating behaviour that has a wider social dimension.

I was most interested in what I hope I may describe without being patronising as the excellent speech of Senator Haughey, where he considered in the most sober and reflective way the whole question of these restrictions under the present Acts. He indicated there was an area which required consideration, and that is whether or not we could permit this form of activity but in restricted areas and also resolve the conflict between the jurisdiction of courts — District Courts on the one hand and local authorities on the other — by permitting the operation of these gambling facilities in seaside resorts, one example he gave, or in other areas. This does worry me a little bit and I will give the House the reason.

It is quite normal for people in middle-class residential areas to object very vociferously and — I will not say to manipulate — but to act upon their local representatives in such a manner as to ensure that planning permissions, for example, are denied for the opening of these sort of premises. The net result of that is a kind of domino effect so that these operations tend to wind up in areas where you do not have a concentration of middle-class people — you have instead the most vulnerable sections of society largely.

How do I know this? I know this because I live in an area of the north inner city of Dublin. I have had experience of gambling dens and casinos being dislodged from residential areas of the north city suburbs and finding them all strung together along areas like Parnell Street, for example. I cannot state definitively that there is a direct correlation between the increase in housebreaking, in petty vandalism and other forms of anti-social behaviour, ranging from nuisance to downright criminal behaviour, but as a resident of that area I can tell you that I and many other residents believe that this is directly related, at least in part, to the existence of these gambling halls. It is very much resented that they should be dislodged from one area and then concentrated in another area. I hope the Minister will look very carefully at the review, if it is undertaken, and ensure that whatever legislation is framed does not have the operation of merely relegating these activities, which I certainly see as undesirable, to another area of the city that does not want them.

I accept that there are many difficulties for the Government, because we have recently engaged on a system of public financing depending upon a national lottery. These are elements even here that worry me. I accept that there is a conflict in the Government's position. If they are to restrict the operations of these slot machines and so on, they have a philosophical difficulty because the Government are embarked on financing some public expenditure from gaming. Perhaps the Government should also look again at this area, because it is quite clear that, once more, vulnerable sections of the community are spending very sizeable sums of their weekly budget in purchasing lottery tickets. Again, it is a moot point as to the extent to which Government can actually get directly involved in restricting the rights of individuals in this area. However, it is important we ensure that we do nothing to encourage anti-social behaviour.

I would like to place on the record of this House also that I consider it extremely regrettable that members of local authorities have apparently been threatened by interests associated with this lobby. I place on record, for example the experience, widely publicised in the past few weeks, of Councillor Martin Lynch who, as I have read in the newspapers, has been subjected to a telephone campaign, including death threats. It would be very wrong of me to point the finger at any particular person or personalities involved but I would point out that the operations of these kinds of gambling machine were originally most popular in the United States of America, where they were associated with criminal elements, and in particular the Mafia. I wonder if we want to open up the possibility of the exploitation of our most vulnerable sections of the community and the possibility that public representatives may be threatened by people who feel they have an interest, whether they do or not, in this area?

Therefore, I welcome the fact that this debate has taken place. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the serious reservations of many Senators who feel that, notwithstanding our interest in the rights of the individual to freedom of expression and to engage in anti-social behaviour, we are also aware of the limits that need to be placed upon that anti-social behaviour when it can be demonstrated so clearly to have a damaging impact outside the scope of the individual's own wellbeing.

Mr. Cullimore

First, I would like to compliment the Minister on all the Bills he has brought into this House since his appointment as Minister for Justice. I agree with previous speakers that it is important that we update the 1956 Act. There are a number of anomalies in this Act which are causing great public concern. Many families are experiencing grave cash shortages because of these anomalies and abuses by arcade owners. If we are to bring in new legislation I think it is important that a proper balance be struck. We must encourage those who are professionally managing their arcades, who are confident and competent in the handling of their business; but we must ensure that those who are corrupt and who are abusing their positions are totally barred from the process of gambling and amusement facilities. There are many reported abuses of the gambling and gaming Acts. It is very difficult for the Garda to get proof for the conviction of these people. When one thinks that by the mere flick of a switch the machines can be turned off, it shows how very difficult it is to get proof.

I understand that under the 1956 Act only people up to 16 years of age are barred. I would like to see a situation where this age level was increased to people up to 18. If new legislation is to be brought in, I think we should provide for centralised power in regard to gaming and amusement. It is very difficult to understand how one law applies in Donegal, another in Wexford and another in Dublin. Legislation as it stands at present places county councillors in a very difficult position. Often the work of local authorities is sidetracked because of participation in debates on the rules and regulations regarding gaming and amusement centres.

I would like to see under any new legislation a reassessment of the amounts that are gambled. At present the Act allows for £10,000 for national draws and the maximum payout is two and a half and 50 pence. When we think of the rate of the weekly wage in 1956, this has increased by 2,200 per cent. I think it is important that if legislation is brought in that situation should be addressed.

In conclusion, I wish the Minister every success. I hope we will have a Bill to combat the abuse of power by some owners of arcades and amusements.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Collins)

I welcome the opportunity provided by this motion to have a debate concerning gaming. I congratulate the Senators who tabled this motion as it provided a very good opportunity of airing the different views on the topic. I am thankful to the Members of this House for taking up my suggestion to have this matter debated in this House. I have issued a similar invitation to Members in the other House because I want their views too on this important matter. As soon as we can arrange between ourselves time for that debate, then we will get it under way.

I regret I was unable to be here on Wednesday last for the first half of the debate on the motion. Senators — and some in particular — will know I had another official engagement in the northeastern part of the country on that afternoon and it was not possible for me to be here. Nevertheless, I have read with interest the contributions by the Senators who spoke last Wednesday and I have also listened with interest to this evening's speakers.

The motion notes the need to review the Gaming and Lotteries Acts to ensure that proper control is maintained in the area of gaming. Let me say, first of all, that the Gaming and Lotteries Act and, specifically, gaming are kept under continuing review in my Department. We must continue to do this because there is a very deep concern running throughout the community with the way the situation is developing at the present time.

The question of gaming, gaming machines and gaming halls is one which has seldom been out of the news in the past few years. Various aspects of the matter have been in the forefront of the publicity from time to time. Indeed the media coverage shows that there is a great diversity in views on gaming. Some of the topics that have figured largely in the headlines in recent years have been addiction to gaming machines and the consequent hardships; publicity concerning very high prize money being available from gaming machines, and indeed high prize money being given by the operator standing behind the machine, being given in some instances when he feels it is pretty safe for him to do that. We have had headlines in recent times about court cases concerning the prizes and the stake limits for gaming machines. We have had headlines about the part played by local authorities in regard to gaming in their areas; and, indeed, the pressure that members of public authorities were subjected to by those who have vested interests in this area.

Members of this Oireachtas will be aware of a situation not so long ago during the life of the previous Government when Members were verbally abused by those who were lobbying at the particular time for an amendment to the gaming laws to suit their needs. I, myself, was accosted during that particular period by Members who were trying to get legislation rushed through at that time.

There are, of course, also news items concerning allegations of gaming continuing in the Dublin area despite the fact that the corporation had rescinded the legal provision allowing gaming there. The most recent area of publicity has been a series of articles in a Dublin evening newspaper concerning the position in Dublin city. As Senators are aware, that Dublin Corporation rescinded its adoption of Part III of the 1956 Act over three years. The contention was that, despite that decision, gaming in arcades continued in Dublin city. This was a matter of particular concern to me and I had a number of discussions with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Dublin Metropolitan Area on the matter. Following those discussions I was satisfied, and remain satisfied, that the Gaming and Lotteries Acts are being enforced by the Garda in an active and dedicated manner and that they will investigate in a thorough manner any alleged breaches of the law brought to their attention. This is the position in Dublin city and it is also the position throughout the country as a whole.

In this context I should mention that there was a very big increase in the number of detections and breaches of the Act in 1988 as compared with 1987. The number of detections in 1988 was 420 as compared with 127 in the previous year. On this question of enforcement by the Garda, I have to stress that where there is evidence of illegal gaming all possible evidence should be made available to the Garda. They can only go to court when they have evidence and, accordingly, they need the co-operation of the public in this matter.

May I say that, following my discussions with the Commissioner and his senior staff and my own legal advisers I can report to this House that I have asked the Commissioner and his legal advisers and my advisers to have consultations with the Office of the Attorney General to see how best we can use all the resources of the State to deal with those who are involved in illegal gaming. I am satisfied that the outcome of those consultations will be of great help to the Garda. We will hear more about them in due course.

It has always seemed to me that the most crucial aspect is the provision in our law which gives local authorities the right to allow or to refuse gaming to take place in their own areas. When the 1956 Act was enacted a conscious decision was taken to give local authorities this power. Those who wished to allow gaming did so by adopting Part III of the Act and those who did not simply did not adopt that part of the Act. What happened was that most local authorities did adopt Part III of the Act and so allowed gaming in their administrative areas. In recent years some of those local authorities have rescinded their adoption of Part III and, accordingly, gaming is no longer legal in their administrative areas. Dublin Corporation, as I have already mentioned, took that decision in recent years. Other local authorities are considering whether to rescind their previous adoption of Part III. I should mention that there have been also a number of cases where local authorities have considered whether they should rescind Part III and have decided not to do so.

It is clear that in recent years some local authorities felt that a very serious problem had developed in their areas and, accordingly, decided to reverse their previous decisions and so outlaw gaming in their areas. Perhaps other local authorities should view the matter in the same light now. Many suggestions have been made for various changes in the system of control of gaming but I must emphasise that these suggestions mean, first of all, that the powers which local authorities have at the moment under the Act should be taken away from them and that the decision as to whether gaming is allowed should be made centrally.

I think it is fair to say that many of these suggestions imply that there would be no total ban on gaming anywhere. This is a very big question. It relates to the powers which local authorities should have and the balance of powers as between local authorities and the central authority. It is an area that I would have to consider very carefully as, apart altogether from its importance in relation to the topic of gaming, it has relevance — Senators here will be fully conscious of this — to other areas also.

In recent years there has also been media coverage of such aspects of gaming as the court cases that were taken in relation to the constitutionality of the Acts, addiction to gaming machines and gaming by persons under the legal age. All of these are aspects of gaming which require attentions but in my view the debate we are having this evening boils down to two main questions, which are (1) is the present legislation adequate; and (2) are the Garda able to enforce it? I have dealt already with the position of the Gardai and enforcement, and I am satisfied they are doing their best to enforce it. As I said, in an effort to strengthen their hands, I can inform the House that the Garda are at present involved in top level discussions with the Attorney General and his Office and the senior legal advisers in my Department with a view to helping them in this particular area.

On the question of the adequacy of the present law, my position is that I am open to be convinced that there is a case for amending legislation. One of the suggestions that has been made in this area is that there should be a gaming board. That is not a new idea; it certainly is not. That was one that was floated to me over ten years or so ago in my previous term as Minister for Justice by those who were involved in the industry. It implies that there would be no total ban on gaming as envisaged in the 1956 Act either nationally or in local areas. At that particular time I did not accept the need for a gaming board and I still do not accept it. Apart from the extraordinary reversal of our present system involved in such an idea, as far as I am aware gaming boards have not been a great success at all in other jurisdictions. At any rate my view is, and it is a view I hold very strongly, that the responsibility in this area should remain with the Minister for Justice of the day, that he should be answerable to the Oireachtas on the matter and be prepared to come and meet people like yourselves who have the authority to enact legislation and to discuss legislation rather than trying to deal with a body with whom you may not even have the right of audience.

I will not be considering in any shape or form a recommendation for the inclusion in legislation of any such board. If the buck stops here, it stops here. You are the people I am answerable to, as I am answerable to the people in the other House, and that is the way it is going to be.

Another suggestion is that the hands of the Garda should be strengthened by amending legislation as regards enforcement. I am open to be convinced that the gaming laws need to be strengthened. I have told you of the meetings and discussions that are taking place between the Attorney General's Office, my office and the Garda. If I get a recommendation arising from these, and in particular from the Garda whose function it is to enforce the law, if they feel that the law as it is framed is not helpful to them, I will very gladly do something about it and come back here with legislation for your consideration.

I am very pleased that this debate is taking place. I have read with interest the comments made by Senators last Wednesday and what the speakers said this afternoon. I will give very careful consideration to their views. Perhaps I might ask as a quid pro quo that Senators who have a particular interest in this subject would give some consideration to what I have said, especially in relation to the removing of control from persons elected to local authorities. I fully understand the pressures that have been exerted on members of local authorities. I have to be careful on this, having regard to certain matters that are sub judice at present but I am free to comment on pressures that I personally was subjected to when I was not Minister for Justice in this House to lend my support to proposals that I felt were disgraceful. I resented the fact that I was intimidated and harassed at the particular time, as I know were many other Members of the Oireachtas of the day. The Oireachtas was picketed and it was only with great difficulty that we could get admission; we were descended on in the dining halls and in the public rooms of the House by those who were trying to railroad legislation through as a matter of urgency within a matter of hours. I am glad that members of all parties withstood that pressure. I am satisfied, and I say this in particular to the Senators having regard to their obligations under the Act, from the local authorities point of view, that perhaps when we come back to you with legislation we will consider a section of the Bill that would deal with anybody who tries to pressurise members of local authorities in any way to such a degree that they would not try it a second time. I would be very open to suggestions on that.

When I have completed my studies, and I will only have them completed when I get the views of Members of the other House so that I can study them together with the views that have been expressed here, then I will have to make a decision on what has to be done concerning the Gaming and Lotteries Acts. If I become convinced that amending legislation is necessary, then Members of this House can feel assured that I will make the necessary proposals to the Government. I have started the process of examination already by having the Garda consult with the Attorney General and with my own people to see how best we can make the legislation work and the recommendations they give me will certainly be considered.

I want to thank the Members of this House, the Senators who proposed this motion, and to say to them that in areas such as this, where we are totally non-policital but where we all have the interests of the community up front that it is only right that we should have a debate and discussion and the views that are expressed in this House will be heard as they must and should. May I say that the views of all those who are not in this House, will also be listened to and will be considered. I say to those who are here this evening representing the interests involved in gaming, that their views will be considered but, equally, I say to them that if they believe they will intimidate Members of this House by publicity campaigns or the like, they are not going to succeed. They will not intimidate any Member of this House or any member of this Government in any way into introducing legislation other than legislation that will be properly thought out and considered in this House. I do not think they are doing their case any good, bearing in mind the way they should have learned the lesson the last time that Members of this House were intimidated and bullied. If they want the goodwill of Members of Oireachtas Eireann, of all parties, they certainly should have a little consultation among themselves and decide what tactics they should not use.

Mr. Harte

Did you ever hear it said that you should move with the power and not against it? I only heard the last part of the Minister's contribution. It would be very foolhardy of me, even on the basis of the last few remarks, to try to move against the power that exists at the moment in this area.

I accept the idea of a review of the Acts. What makes it acceptable is the fact that we have not had a full debate on this whole problem for a long time in this House. There is some confusion, if you look at the lobbying that has gone on. It is very hard to refute the facts as set out. On the other hand there is the attitudes of the various councils that have been involved in making decisions in this area. I cannot resolve my thinking as to whether it is not too bad in the amusement area and if you separate the amusement from the gaming side of an arcade I do not know whether that would be a workable proposition. I am not sure whether if you installed new machines and put the accurate amounts onto the machines that would work. I am not sure in respect of quite a few things in this area.

I do not think total abolition ever works in anything that affects the human emotions. I do not think it is a practical proposition. For example, the case against gaming machines may be stronger in the urban areas than it is in the rural areas. Quite frankly, we do not know because we have not had enough dialogue and debate about it. We have been trying to sort out our thinking on the basis of the attitudes taken up by various councils but when you go through some of the paper cuttings etc. of which I have copies here, there are imbalances in those attitudes. Some want a complete ban, others believe all that needs to be done is for the Minister to be given the full rights and authority to act in the normal way with regard to bringing in legislation, etc. I believe there is a need for a total review of the 1956 and 1979 Acts. Normally, I would say to the Minister why not bring in the legislation rather than having this type of motion. The Government will be accused of trying to please everybody, not standing on anybody's corns. You cannot do that.

I do not if the people who put down the motion wanted to keep everybody happy in the whole gaming area for political reasons. I am not attributing that to them but it could have been a motivating factor. On the other hand, it could be that a lot more thinking needs to be done on this and that, therefore, the Minister is correct in taking his time about it. Hopefully, when he does review the matter he will look at the question of how the law should stand. Then I suppose the question of review of whatever legislation comes in would be an important factor also.

Quite frankly, even though I have been lobbied, have spoken to people and so on I just could not oppose the motion that is before us because it does nothing except asks us to note the fact that the matter needs review. What I can do, on the basis of the way the motion is put down, is to urge the Minister to say that the problem is a grave one not only from the emotional point of view of the family and so on but also that there are people who make their livelihood from this business. Some of them do it well but others are just cowboys. The problem is that the Minister has to have time to sort out the cowboys from the people who are genuinely concerned about amusement arcades, who do not mind laws being introduced that would be restrictive in a sense because it would give them control over the situation as well as everything. I do not think most of the good operators, particularly on the amusement side of it, would object to the legalising of a certain type of machine, to ensure there could be no interference with it and that it said exactly what it meant. The age of the person who would be allowed into such premises should also be laid down.

Most of the good operators would welcome alterations in the present system. it is a dilemma. We get very emotional when we hear of someone taking their life or something like that but we must not forget there are people genuinely concerned about trying to make sure the public get good entertainment. naturally they are after the profit. Nobody goes into business for nothing. It is like a butcher or a publican saying: "I do not want to make any money". They do make money but in a clean, legitimate way.

I am a little bit confused as between the urban and the rural scenes. I have not resolved my own thinking on the matter yet. I would be the last to condemn it on the basis of just reacting in an emotional way. That is why I say that we favour the idea of a review. This has been going on quite a while now and it cannot drag on indefinitely. When you have various county councils, urban councils etc. in conflict among themselves, somebody has to come in and resolve the problem and I think it has got to be done fairly quickly.

Mr. Farrell

I come from a county that has never adopted section 3 of the Act so, therefore, we have no gaming machines at all. Secondly, I have no interest in the matter. However, I proposed this motion because I believe this matter should be discussed in a cool and calm atmosphere because many subjects today are discussed in a hyped-up and in an emotional atmosphere. Pressure groups are very good. I would not blame the gaming machine lobby. I have been 22 years in public life and I have found in the past nine or ten years that all pressure groups put unreasonable pressure on public representatives on every issue. Very often the pressure groups only represent the views of two or three but it is so easy to get people hyped-up on something. If you ask them whether they have read the full report on something you find they have not. It is a case of, "Dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi" and away they go. I would not like to think we would just lambast the arcade owners. I know they are well able to hold their own corner. They are just a symtom of the times. All pressure groups are being unreasonable at present and I said that at a council meeting the other day.

I am delighted this motion has got broad acceptance in this House and that all Senators believe it is something that should be discussed. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is going to have it discussed in the other House as well and that it is being reviewed by the Garda. Between the two Houses and the legal lobby we should get legislation that will be acceptable to everybody.

I was amazed that this activity was referred to by a Senator in the House as being anti-social. Other people would regard it as a pleasurable pastime. Probably what the good Senator regards as a pleasurable pastime many of us would regard as anti-social. It is a case of every eye forms its own beauty. It depends on how you look at it. I would not regard it as being anti-social, anyway.

I would welcome a new Bill. I do not think it should be with the local authorities. My reason for that is that local authorities are not legally minded and after the council does agreed to do it it still has to go before the courts. If they agree to adopt section 3 of the Act, it does not mean that they are in full charge as they still have to go before the District Justice. It is a waste of time and it is unnecessary duplication. All laws should be handled by the State. I would agree with the Minister on that. You apply and you either succeed or do not succeed in the courts. That would be fair for everybody. Going to the local authorities and coming back to the law courts is a bit cumbersome and can hype-up the situation because, as we all know, the council chambers are not renowned for their peace and calm at all times.

Finally I would like to say a very special thanks to the Minister. It is a clear indication of his dedication and his intention to really bring the Act to as effective a state as possible. He came and stayed here with us all evening even though he could have sent a junior Minister to this House. It is a clear indication of how seriously he looks at this whole situation. I thank him very sincerely for that, as I am sure every Member of the House does. I believe he will come back to this House with a Bill that will be well researched and well presented, and one that will bring peace and comfort to the councils, to the arcade owners, to the punters and to all concerned.

We have not mentioned the manufacturers. We should ensure they manufacture machines that cannot be interfered with. They also should be covered in the new legislation.

Question put and agreed to.