Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jun 1992

Vol. 133 No. 9

Adjournment Matter. - Licensing of Amusement Halls.

I bring up the subject of the need for the Minister for Justice to issue guidelines to local authorities regarding the adoption and rescinding of resolutions regarding the licensing of amusement halls because in my area of Bray, for successive years, there has been a resolution before the council which has failed to ban the slot machines in Bray by a tied vote.

I believe there is need for ministerial instruction, inteference or tightening up of the rules because the gaming machines lobby is too strong. It is difficult for politicians at local level and at urban council level to stand up to the rather over-zealous lobbying of gaming machine owners who put too much pressure on them which they find very difficult to resist. I think the way they have behaved in Bray and in other areas is contemptible. They do it by a mixture of the carrot and the stick; by this I mean they use the stick if anybody criticises them.

I received a solicitor's letter recently from the Irish Amusement Trade Association for making vague criticisms of their activities and suggesting that slot machines should be removed and should no longer be allowed in Bray. I find it particularly reprehensible that criticism is immediately reacted to by threats to go to law. I also think it would be appropriate if this was made public. In the light of what is happening in the beef tribunal at the moment, the Irish Amusement Trade Association should also be required to make public their contributions to political parties and to individuals. That is something no one should be frightened of revealing, and they should be open about it but they are such a strong lobby that those contributions should also be open to the public. Until that is done I believe the Minister should intervene with either far stronger guidelines or slot machines, which are a reprehensible activity, should be abolished from Bray and other areas.

I say this because I believe they are a social evil and I have believed this for a long time, particularly because of a case that happened in this House which underlined the sort of misery that was going on in these arcades. I remember it well. I think it was before their abolition in Dublin in 1985 but it may have been after that that I went to a meeting in this House of a member of the staff who told Members of the Dáil and Seanad of the misery caused to him and his family by his addiction to these machines.

I would like to pay tribute here to Fr. Peter McVerry who did sterling work highlighting the appalling downfall of individuals as a result of their addiction to these machines. It was largely as a result of his work that they were banned in Dublin. Thankfully, a right decision was taken to ban them in Dublin because some people were addicted and because of the misery they caused; they were banned also because of illegal activities.

Unfortunately the effect of banning them in Dublin was to export a great deal of this problem to Bray in County Wicklow. As a result, Bray has become the urban centre of slot machine activity in the greater Dublin area and in County Wicklow. Unfortunately, this reflects badly on the town, has an adverse social effect on the town and has an adverse effect on the environment. It creates a bad image. Although it is bad for the image of the town, I do not think that is the principal reason. It is bad for the people who play them because of the effect on their families. The individual who called this meeting in the Oireachtas all those years ago told us about the misery suffered by his family, about the poverty inflicted on his family and the fact that he was involved with money lenders. He had to get into money lending——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would prefer if the Senator did not refer to any member of the staff of the House.

It is an anonymous individual. Many public representatives were at that meeting but I take your point, a Leas-Chathaoirleach.

One of the great problems in the Bray area has been that while proprietors of these gaming machines have been prosecuted on many occasions, the fines have been derisory — £50 — the Garda in Bray are undermanned and cannot spend their time constantly surveying the activities in these amusement halls to see whether they are breaking the law. The real difficulty is that this is a cash business. There are no receipts for people who go into arcades or amusement areas and play the slot machines. They play with cash. It is undetectable how much they win or lose. We do not know how much the owners are making but we know they are huge amounts of money. People play with coins and they do not get receipts. We know there are huge amounts of money involved and we know they will fight very hard to retain this privilege.

The principal worry to which I refer, which I think the Minister might address, is that the machines have been adjusted; although the 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act only allows a 2½p minimum and a 50p maximum amount, the machines are adjusted so that the best are accumulated and all sorts of ways are found for bypassing the spirit of that Act. There are also serious difficulties and worries about whether under age members of the public walk into those places and play those machines. It is a grey area which is not enforced and is unenforceable.

It is all very well for the Minister to put further pressure on the local authorities, but it is my contention that the principal problem is the existence of activities of this sort which cause misery and unhappiness to many families. I ask the Minister if there is anything he can do as a matter of Government policy to ensure that they are removed. Will he give an instruction to Bray Urban District Council that they should follow the fine example of Dublin and remove this social evil from the body politic?

Ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom leithscéal an Aire Dlí agus Cirt, an Teachta Flynn, a ghabháil os rud é nach bhfuil sé ar a chumas bheith anseo tráthnóna. The position is that the law in relation to gaming is contained in the Gaming and Lotteries Acts, 1956 to 1986, and in particular Part III of the 1956 Act which governs the licensing of amusement halls and fun fairs for gaming purposes.

In order for gaming to be lawful in an area it is a matter in the first instance for the appropriate local authority to pass a resolution under section 13 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 adopting Part III in respect of the whole or a specified part of its administrative area. Once such a resolution is adopted it is then a matter for interested persons to make applications to the District Court for a certificate authorising the issue of a gaming licence by the Revenue Commissioners. A person intending to apply for a certificate authorising the issue of a gaming licence must notify the local Garda Superintendent and publish a notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality of his or her intentions.

At the hearing of the application before the District Court, the Garda Superintendent for the locality or indeed any other person who appears to the court to be interested, may appear and may produce evidence in relation to the application. Furthermore, the court in considering the application must have regard to the character of the applicant, the number of gaming licences already in force in the locality, the suitability of the premises, the manner in which the applicant has conducted his or her business in the past and the kinds of gaming proposed to be carried on. The decision of the District Court in the matter may be appealed to the Circuit Court.

Having in the first place passed a resolution adopting Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 it is open to any local authority subsequently to rescind any resolution in accordance with the procedures set out in section 13 of the 1956 Act.

The position is that in excess of 80 local authorities passed resolutions adopting Part III of the Act. However, following expressions of public concern about the dangers of slot machines, approximately half of these authorities rescinded their earlier resolutions. I am familiar with this in that my own local authority, while I was a member, rescinded Part III of the 1956 Act. This is a good example of local democracy in action.

In my opinion the members of local authorities, being in close contact with the people of the area, are best placed to make a judgment in such sensitive matters of local interest. Councillors and Town Commissioners have used this power sensibly over the past 30 years or so and I am not aware of anything which would justify a change in the present position nor warrant the Minister for Justice issuing guidelines to the local authorities concerning the adoption or otherwise of Part III of the 1956 Act.

I have listened carefully to the remarks of Senator Ross particularly in relation to Bray, the adjustment of machines, not adhering strictly to the legislation in relation to a bet of 2½p and a pay-out of 50p and the damage this is causing. I will bring his comments to the attention of the Minister but I have to point out that that there is no provision in the legislation requiring or authorising the Minister for Justice to issue any directive. There is no provision there and despite what happened in Dublin, or indeed in many other counties, like my own county, it is a matter for the local authorities and the 1956 Act appertains to this.

Most members of local authorities are very well informed as to the wishes of the majority of the people in their localities and are quick to perceive any changes in these views with the passage of time. The issuing of guidelines from a central authority such as the Minister for Justice to the local authorities in these matters would not, in my opinion, be appropriate. However, the Senator can be assured I shall bring his strongly held views to the attention of the Minister.

I would like to thank the Minister. In view of the serious public concern which is constantly being expressed particularly in Bray about the activities of the owners of the slot machines, would the Minister consider recommending to the Government that the contributions these people make to political parties or to individuals should, along with those in the Beef Tribunal, be made public?

The Senator is referring to the activities of the users. If the Senator brings them to my attention or directly to the attention of the Minister for Justice we will certainly take a decision in relation to the activities to which he refers. If he includes that then I will put it to the Minister.

What about the contributions?

That will be a matter for the Minister when the Senator can give some details and more precise data. It is very easy to make bald statements. If Senator Ross lets us have some specific details, it will be a matter for the Minister to decide if he should pursue the matter and I am quite sure he will do so.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 12 noon on Tuesday, 30 June 1992.

Top
Share