Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Nov 1955

Vol. 45 No. 8

Gaming and Lotteries Bill, 1955—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Everett)

In this Bill we propose to amend and consolidate the ancient laws in force, dating from 1698 to 1892, which prohibit gaming and lotteries.

The general principle which has guided us in our approach to the problems is that gaming is not wrong in itself, that when carried on privately it does not call for State intervention, but when promoted with the object of enriching the promoter, it requires to be supervised and kept within moderate dimensions so as to safeguard the public from fraud and from being induced to play to excess. These remarks also apply to the promotion of lotteries.

I am happy to say that the Government's proposals embodied in the Bill were well received in the Dáil and, indeed, by the professional showmen and amusement caterers, and the general public. On the section-to-section details there was a remarkable degree of unanimity as to what should be done. Sometimes there were differences of opinion which disappeared as the debate proceeded and, on the whole, the criticism was constructive. It would be too much to hope, I suppose that at this, our first attempt, at dealing with this long-outstanding difficult problem, we will prove to be 100 per cent. successful, but, anyway, this Bill is a beginning and I am satisfied that we are establishing sound foundations in case further legislation is required later on to tidy up any looseness that may be revealed through actual working conditions.

The Bill is in five parts, the first of which is concerned merely with definitions and repeals. Parts II and III deal with gaming, Part IV with lotteries and Part V with enforcement, evidence and penalties.

Under Part II of the Bill, gaming is defined in Section 2 as:

"... playing a game of skill or chance or partly of skill and partly of chance for stakes hazarded by the players."

In Section 4 gaming which is unlawful is defined. At this point I want to make it clear that it is the person who promotes or assists in promoting, or provides facilities for unlawful gaming who is prosecuted. The actual players. are not punishable. Section 4 also provides in its third sub-section that gaming, otherwise unlawful, is not to be unlawful when carried on in the circumstances specified. I feel that I should emphasise that the definition of unlawful gaming in Section 4 is very important. The existing law was aimed at the promotion of games of chance and it was a good defence to police proceedings to show that the element of chance did not predominate over the element of skill in playing a game. In consequence, promoters introduced variations of gambling games which ostensibly required an element of skill in the playing and the courts had difficulty in deciding whether particular games were games of chance. And different courts gave contrary decisions in relation to a particular game. With the new definitions of gaming in Section 2 and of unlawful gaming in Section 4 we hope to make it hot for any person who promotes or provides facilities for gaming outside the limits permitted in this Bill.

I do not think that I need go into any detail on this Reading about Section 6 which deals with the conditions under which gaming may be carried on at circuses or travelling shows or about Section 7 which deals with gaming at carnivals and such events. The purpose of Section 6 is to let the circuses and shows which travel about the country, never stopping more than a couple of days in any one place, to operate slot machines for small prizes in kind, to promote pongo or roulette or such like games for small stakes and small prizes. Similarly Section 7 allows moderate gaming for one month, for what might be described as worthy purposes, where the organising group get no personal profit.

I would also direct your particular attention to Section 8: this section was not in the Bill when first circulated and it was inserted as a result of fears that unless the proprietors, etc., of equipment used in gambling games were living here we might very well see a situation developing in which unscrupulous foreign promoters might pay us flying visits, operate with rigged machines, etc., and be gone again before the police could catch up on them. While recognising the useful part which the circus, travelling show and carnivals, etc., play in brightening up life in villages and small towns, we do not want to establish an El Dorado for showmen and amusement caterers where they can look for gold at every turn of the wheel.

Section 9 deals with gaming on licensed premises and in sub-sections (1) and (2) simply restates the existing law: sub-section (3) is new and it provides that the playing of cards at whist or bridge drives in licensed hotels, or games such as darts or rings in ordinary public-houses, when conducted for sociable purposes and where the promoter or licensee providing facilities does not take a personal profit from the game, is not unlawful. What we are doing in sub-section (3) is changing the statute law to correspond with the law of common sense so that these harmless, sociable types of gaming may be played in licensed premises in future without any fear of police proceedings.

Section 10 is another important section. It prohibits absolutely the type of slot machine which, on the insertion of a coin or token, automatically delivers, when successfully operated, a cash prize in excess of the value of the stake. These machines commonly referred to as "one-armed bandits" are gold-mines for the owners: their mechanism is always adjusted to give the owner a profit which may vary from a penny in threepence to tenpence in the shilling. They are, in effect, devices for transferring money from the pockets of the public into the pockets of the owners and their particular harm lies in the rapidity with which they may be operated. There are, of course, other types of slot-machines which are gaming machines in that they are coin operated but deliver prizes in kind when successfully operated. These are the kind referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 4 and they can only be operated in the circumstances set out in Sections 6, 7 and 14 of this Bill.

I come now to Part III of the Bill which provides for the establishment of licensed amusement halls and funfairs at which gaming may be promoted all the year round. Originally our intention was that these premises would only be allowed to operate at tourist resorts and only during the holiday season—in other words where there was a public demand for that kind of amusement—and in order to bring that about we provided in the Bill, as introduced, what we considered were necessary safeguards. We provided, first of all, that such a premises could be established in a town or village, etc., only where the appropriate local authority—the urban council, town commissioners, county councils, etc., as the case might be—as the representatives of the local people— formally passed a resolution approving the whole or a specified part of their administrative area as proper for the establishment of such amusement halls; then we went on to limit the period, during which gaming could be carried on from Easter Sunday to 30th September; and we put in provisions so that only a fit and proper person could get a licence for suitable premises. In the Dáil, however, I was persuaded—somewhat reluctantly, I will admit—to allow the court, when granting a certificate in a particular year which would authorise the Revenue Commissioners to issue a licence permitting gaming at an amusement hall or funfair, to fix the period in that year, during which gaming might be carried on. I have no doubt, however, that if the local authority of a particular place indicates by way of resolution, its view that licences should be issued only for the holiday season or a specified period of a year the District Court concerned, when hearing applications would take cognisance of such a view.

Part IV of the Bill is concerned with lotteries. We are allowing office sweeps, raffles at dances, etc., which are in the nature of minor private ventures, to be promoted without formality. We provide for lotteries at circuses, carnivals and licensed amusement halls within the limitations of stakes and prizes and the conditions already provided in respect of gaming at these places under the earlier parts of the Bill. Then we recognise that there is a certain public demand for lotteries of a more ambitious type which are promoted for the benefit of some charity or for some worthy purpose and we provide for these by way of police permit for a lottery with a £300 prize limit and a District Court licence where a periodical lottery is being promoted with prizes not exceeding £500 per week and in which not more than 40 per cent. of the gross proceeds goes to the expenses of promotion. My personal view is that the public would be better served if prizes were limited to £300 at most, and the expenses of promotion to 25 per cent. at most of the gross proceeds, but there was a body of opinion in the Dáil against me and with some reluctance I agreed to raise the limits originally set out in the Bill.

Part V of the Bill relates to enforcement, evidence and penalties. It will be observed that we are re-enacting the law contained in the statute of 1845 which declares gaming and wagering contracts void. I was under some pressure in the Dáil to change the law in this respect or to give way to the extent that proceedings against a defaulting punter could be heard in court. Balancing all the arguments for and against, I felt that the law should remain unchanged and that was the general feeling of the House.

The remaining provisions are of a routine nature: some of them correspond to provisions in statutes named in the Schedule to the Bill which are now being repealed, and others correspond to provisions of the law in force.

In conclusion, I feel that I should mention, as I did in the Dáil, that this Bill has been framed after many years' consideration of the problems and that while it has been my lot to promote the Bill, more than one of my predecessors in office, as Minister for Justice, has had a hand in its shaping.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister has given us a very brief outline only of the proposals in this Bill. No matter how we look at this Bill, we find it is taking away from and curtailing the activities of quite a large section of our people. The Minister informed us that he had the goodwill of the people engaged in this business. One might take that and look at it in two ways. If the Minister has their goodwill and these people are as enthusiastic as the Minister would wish us to believe about this Bill, then there must be very little in it that will curtail the activities that he is setting out to curtail. We are all very reluctant to give our approval to any proposals that will deprive any section or sections of our people of any of the freedoms and privileges they now enjoy. The show business, and those people engaged in it, have played a very important part in the life of the country and they have been the means of providing a very cheap form of entertainment for our people. Once we set out to place restrictions on activities of this kind, from experience we know that we go from one restriction to another, and we have always found eventually that, instead of removing the evil we set out to remove, we have created a greater evil.

I am sure many members of the House remember the time when there was a great outcry in the country against the dance in the country house. We went so far with that that we prohibited the holding of dances in the country house. By doing that, we removed one great form of amusement and entertainment, the intermixing of our people in rural areas, and we set up what might very rightly be referred to as one of the greatest evils that could be set up in this country.

I refer to the type of dance hall that we, by Act of the Oireachtas, set up by the issuing of licences. I have a feeling that many of the people who advocated the abolition of the country house dance and who sponsored the setting up of these halls, would, if they had foreseen the results, be the first to support legislation to end the present system. It is for that reason that I look on this Bill with very grave doubts as to whether the end justifies the means we are proposing to adopt.

The Bill differs very much from that which the Minister first introduced. It has been amended. Whether these amendments are an improvement is a matter of opinion. They are improvements in certain sections of the Bill; in others, I would not think they are. However, that is a matter for another day on the Committee Stage.

The Bill deals with games. Many of these games are harmless. Many of them have been encouraged, particularly in our tourist districts, as an entertainment for those people who are holidaying, particularly our own people who are holidaying at home. We have had, down the years, complaints that our seaside resorts are rather drab, that we are not prepared to encourage entertainments that might attract our young people and that might give an opportunity for whiling away the time, particularly in seasons that are not as good as the last season we had. The majority of these are harmless entertainments. I will admit that, in a number of cases, particularly in our large centres, a great evil had grown up in the establishment of places of amusement where there are all kinds of games which induced people, particularly women, to spend more money than is good for them; but I do not know whether it is a good thing to have to pass regulations to protect those people from themselves, because, if they are that way inclined, some other avenue will be opened up which will be probably more dangerous and have worse effects than the mere playing of a game of pongo in one of these entertainment, or amusement palaces, as they call them.

We are taking away a tremendous amount of freedom from the people. We are taking away the right to entertainment that is, of itself, enjoyable to them, and we are doing this in spite of the fact that we have legalised another form of gaming. There is not a village where we have not one, two or three official revenue collecting betting shops legalised by this House. To my mind, the thing does not exactly make sense, and, while I said at the outset that, if there is an evil there, we should do what we can to remove it, we should make sure that the means we intend to adopt will not create a greater evil I am afraid that is what can follow from this Bill.

We are passing the buck, as the Yank would say, over to the local authorities. We are passing a Bill setting out certain regulations, but we are saying to urban councils, or corporations, or whatever local authority there is: "You must do this and you may do that" in the matter of licences and just as we have had in the past a very different approach by district justices where cases were brought up before them, so we may expect different approaches from local authorities in regard to this Bill. One district justice will say pongo is harmless and quite legal; another will impose a fine of £100. We will have the same approach by many members of local authorities. Some will want as many registered places of amusement as possible; others will, possibly for various reasons, be anxious to curtail them.

While we are legalising the whole business and providing for registration and licensing, we are creating a situation where there will be annual, and perhaps monthly, discussions at these local bodies, according as applications for licensing come forward. I would prefer to see a provision in the Bill whereby a person would apply to the Revenue Commissioners, or whatever authority we may decide, for permission for the opening of such premises, that is, if we approve of opening them at all, rather than that we should leave it to the local authorities and have a different outlook in every different local authority district, even within the one county.

Examining the Bill on general principles, I am not over-enthusiastic about its acceptance, but I am not prepared, on the Second Reading, to vote against it. That has not been the procedure in this House. It is a Bill that affects the lives of many of our people, because it curtails the activities of a great section of the people.

There are 51 sections in the Bill. It has been in the Dáil for quite a long time. That fact and the discussion in the Dáil should not influence us so much here in our approach to it. When saying that, I should say that it is entirely a Committee Bill, one that can be better dealt with in Committee, and which I hope before it leaves this House will be very much improved. I think I would have quite a number of members on both sides with me in saying that if something is to be done about this, we should examine it very carefully to make sure that whatever legislation we pass will be effective, will be given effect to and recognised, and will not be something that we will just pass and say is there, and that any busybody of a Guard in any part of the country may put it into operation, if he so desires. It will depend then on the view of the district justice also.

If the evils to which the Minister made some slight references to-day should, in the national interests, be removed, then, let us seriously consider what we are doing and, on Committee Stage, see if we can possibly improve the Bill so that it will go at least part of the way to remove the evils that exist while allowing the people as much freedom as possible.

Mr. Carton

I am in general agreement with Senator Hawkins in the fashion and manner in which he referred to the various aspects of this Bill. I believe the Seanad will welcome the Bill. At the same time, Senator Hawkins has referred to various aspects which I should like to discuss. In deference to the Minister and to the Seanad, I notify you now, Sir, that I am putting down five amendments and I hope that they will be fully discussed on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Walsh

It is only right that, in this more liberal age, when there is a much greater levelling up of the resources of the community and a higher standard of living, the inadequate laws of the Lotteries Act, 1845, should be repealed and substituted by more enlightened legislation. It is obvious that there is a public demand for at least a limited form of gambling, and it is only right that cognisance should be taken of that demand in this Bill. I think it is undesirable to have on the Statute Book legislation which is not being enforced because public opinion is not behind it. Such law is unrealistic and bad in principle. It adversely affects the respect and prestige of the enforcing authority. I believe, for instance, that Section 34 is not capable of being properly enforced when we advert to the long meandering land frontier. I also think that Section 50 is too drastic. It is a very serious matter that any postal packet may be detained in transit and forwarded to a superintendent of the Garda Síochána who may open it, without any time limit as to when it shall be forwarded to the addressee if no document relating to a lottery is found therein.

For instance, assuming that a solicitor in a country district has to send important papers to his town agent, or even to a stockbroker, and those papers should be delivered the following day, a postal official would be entitled under this Bill to forward a postal packet, which is suspected of containing documents in connection with a lottery, to the Garda Síochána and the superintendent can detain those documents without any time limit as to when they should be returned.

It seems also unrealistic that a young boy or girl who may be earning, but who is under 16 years of age, is precluded from wagering sixpence or threepence, or even a penny in a game of pongo, particularly if they are accompanied by their parents or some other relative, at a parochial carnival. That is the position under two sections of this Bill, namely Section 7 and Section 14.

I also think that the definition of a public place is much too wide. For instance, a private dwelling-house may be regarded as a public place because of the fact that the public have access by permission.

There are quite a number of other sections of the Bill to which I would like to refer on the Committee Stage more fully. It is not appropriate that they should be dealt with at this stage. For instance, there is the question of the definition in connection with past events.

I would like particularly to refer to Section 8. In that section there is a reference to a qualified person, and a qualified person is a person who, during the 12 months, has been ordinarily resident in the State. There are a number of parishes along the Border where the greater proportion of the parish is in Northern Ireland, and the parish priest or rector, or Presbyterian minister or the other people responsible for the running of the carnival live in Northern Ireland. Apparently they will not be entitled to run that carnival, except in the portion of the State which is in their particular parish.

I also think that, in connection with licensed premises, the Bill can be criticised. It seems to me that a lodger or a member of the family, such as a child, can play ludo or a game of snakes and ladders for a penny in that licensed premises only once, because it is only once in the night that such a game is permitted under that section. Those are a few of the sections to which I wish again to refer on the Committee Stage.

In connection with the licensing under Part III of the Bill, I cannot see what advantage there is in bringing the local authority into it. The local authority will not be the licensing authority. The licensing authority will be the District Court, and the local authority, once they have adopted the Act, have no further function as far as licensing of the place where the game is to take place is concerned. The procedure is cumbersome. First of all, two notices at different times have to be published in the newspapers. The local authority may be called specially, and, as already referred to in the other House, it may cost up to £70 to bring the members of that local authority together, to decide whether or not the section should be brought into force. The Minister has already stated that the District Court would probably accept the views of the local authority, but it is not mandatory on it to do so, and the District Court will have full discretion as to whether or not it will issue the certificate which will permit the revenue authorities to issue the licence at a subsequent date.

The local authority will be a notice authority, and that notice has to be served within 28 days, but it does not set out in the Bill whether or not the local authority as such, or the county manager, will be the person who will consider the application. There may not, for instance, be a meeting of the local authority. In some counties, meetings take place every three months. Consequently, from the time the notice is served on the county council until the date of the District Court, there may not be a meeting of that council. Consequently, I assume that the county manager would be the person who would decide whether or not he should instruct his solicitor to oppose the application or the conditions under which the certificate should be granted by the District Court. I would suggest, therefore, to the Minister that this is too expensive and cumbersome. The court is the final authority in the matter, and as in the dance hall licence, where the county council or the urban council, as the case may be, are the notice authority, that is sufficient. They can come in, as any individual is entitled to come in, on any application and oppose the application, or suggest that for public health reasons the premises are not suitable.

Professor Hayes

I rise with some diffidence to say something about this Bill, because I am peculiarly ignorant of gaming or gambling of any kind. I feel inclined to recall the occasion on which a predecessor of the Minister, introducing an amendment of the licensing law, said that he was completely ignorant of public-houses. I happened to be Leader of the Opposition at that particular moment and I knew the Minister from our childhood and I said that I knew that he was not any more ignorant than I was. A third Senator got up and said that he had ample experience of public-houses from both sides of the counter. I am now in the position that all I know about gaming is that, on one very wet day, I spent an afternoon in one of those places. But I do think that there is an improvement in this Bill in so far as it ends, as the Minister said, certain legal uncertainty. I gather that a great many people who have been in charge of establishments in Dublin and other cities and towns have actually been doing something for which there was no legal authority. Whatever its merits, this Bill is giving legal authority to those places, and to travelling shows and circuses.

There is something in what Senator Hawkins has said, that this is another piece of legislation to save people from themselves. The curious thing is that every time we take on this kind of measure we, of course, at a certain expense to the State, increase the responsibility of the Civil Service and travel further on the road to giving the State more power. For every particular instance, there is ample argument, but when we add them all up, the sum is enormous.

Without dealing with the general principle of the Bill, I should like to ask a question which will offer some trouble on the Committee Stage, with regard to Part III. I know nothing about the business to which this Part refers, but I understand from Part III that, in order that this gaming business may be carried on in a given area, the local authority must pass a resolution adopting Part III of this Bill when it becomes an Act. Does that mean that if a person has been operating a gaming establishment without coming under police notice and so on, in a reasonable way, for a number of years—say, ten or 15 or 20 years—he may find himself, when this Bill becomes an Act, in this position, that the local authority in his area does not adopt a resolution putting this part of the Act into operation, and by that simple fact may find himself put out of business? In that case, not only is he put out of business himself, but there are his dependents and his employees who are affected.

That, in itself, as far as I can read Section 13, is a departure from the usual practice of legislation and will certainly do injustice. It could do a lot of damage to the people concerned who have been running a business for a number of years and who have invested in it, and, to put it in the mildest form, it would be very unfair to put them out of business because the provisions of this section say that a local authority must pass a resolution. I do not know if anything can be done in the matter. It does seem unfair, however, that people who have been conducting their business reasonably and lawfully over a number of years, who have invested capital in it and who have employees, should now be in the position that they can be put out of business, while others in a neighbouring county or area might be able to continue. I would agree with Senator Hawkins that it is an undesirable provision in the Bill and perhaps the Minister could tell us how he proposes to deal with that matter on the Committee Stage. The Bill is preeminently a Committee Bill and I should like to have more information on it at that Stage.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Bille ana achrannach seadh é seo, mar tá iarracht á dhéanamh againn ar chose a chur le h-imtheachtaí na ndaoine 'na saol agus 'na nósanna agus gan leigint dóibh rudaí a dhéanamh a bheadh díobhaireach dóibh féin agus do'n phobail uile. Ach fairíor, is minic a thuiteann sé amach, nuair a ceapfai a beifí ag déanamh maitheasa, gur diobháil a thiocfádh as an iarracht i slite áirithe so deire thiar thall. Mar gheall air sin, ni mór dúinn an cheist seo a scrúdú go mion idir seo agus an lá a bheimid ag deighleáil leis an mBille mar choiste.

The matters concerned in the Bill are many and this is a very involved piece of legislation. Its provisions are either desirable or necessary, but I am afraid it would be difficult to enforce it in certain respects. As somebody has already stated, if not here then in the other House, it is not a good thing to pass legislation when there is no certainty that it will be enforced, because the tendency in that case is that, in practice, the measure in question falls into disrespect. Sometimes, of course, as we know and as I have referred to already in Irish, when we proceed to remove evils or alleged evils of the nature we seek to grapple with here in this measure, we may do a certain amount of damage in other directions. There is a danger always of that arising in interfering with the freedom of the subject. I am not one of those who holds that it is not necessary to curtail at times the freedom of the individual, even for his own sake, but it is a very difficult matter to determine to what lengths one should go for a remedy.

It is very difficult in a matter of this kind to ensure that in trying to remedy certain social evils or alleged social evils, that we have left the position no worse than it was already and that certain anomalies do not arise that were not there before. It is very difficult, for instance, to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate amusements. Fundamentally, I suppose it is a moral question and one to be resolved by people's own conscience, but I do not know. I have certain doubts about some of the provisions of this measure and whether they will bring about desired results. I have also some misgivings as to whether the position in relation to gaming and lotteries in this country is going to be fundamentally altered. We have to take many things into consideration when dealing with this matter. We have to take public organisations for charitable purposes and there is always entwined with that the question of profit for those who engage in the carrying out of these amusements, whether they be shows, bazaars or carnivals as they are often called.

The Minister has stated that it was his own personal view that a limitation of £300 should be adhered to in connection with the organisation of these functions. Now the figure has been increased to £500, I think, in the Bill, and one question I would like to ask is whether that will apply to carnivals organised for charitable purposes generally, because I am aware that in the past some of these functions were so well organised and carried out that they realised a much higher figure than that. I would like the Minister to give us some indication as to whether this limitation is to be imposed in the case of carnivals or bazaars. The system in this connection, as Senators are aware, is that there are certain companies who run carnivals and travel from place to place at the invitation of the local organisations to help these organisations to collect funds for their charitable objects. The arrangement is that 50 per cent. of the takings is retained by the owners of the carnival machinery, if I might put it that way, and 50 per cent. retained by the local people who are promoting the charity in question. There is also the question of the deduction of expenses which is referred to in this measure.

I am entirely in agreement with those who have referred to this, what I would describe as cumbersome procedure, whereby promoters of these carnivals, or the promoters of whatever amusements are involved for the organisation, have to deal with the local authority. I am concerned as to whether it is right to bring in the local authority at all; whether it is advisable to compel these people to make application to the local authority before they can go to the District Court. That appears to me to be a roundabout way of doing business and I am at one with the views expressed here that the pattern adopted in connection with application for licences for dance-halls would be quite sufficient for this purpose also. This is a matter that should be given further consideration by the Minister between now and the Committee Stage. In any case, having examined it more closely, we will see whether the section relating to it can be amended.

The Minister referred to common sense. No doubt common sense is a wonderful ingredient in all these matters. If it could prevail in the organisation of these amusements and gaming, there would be no need for this legislation. Unfortunately, common sense is not always present. The Bill is predominantly a Committee Stage Bill and I am glad to say that the Minister himself has an open mind on some of these matters. It is only right that he should. Here in this country we have not yet had sufficient experience as to the extent to which the habits and proclivities of the people who make up the social order can be curbed.

For instance, it is very difficult to deal with what is described in the Bill as gaming in licensed premises. According to one section here, even a game of cards in licensed premises will be lawful, only if the licensee gives permission to those participating in the game to sit in a room away from the licensed premises. As far as I can gather from the Bill, if there is a question of refreshments for those taking part in the game, the proprietor himself would have to put up the refreshments, and those engaged in the game cannot be permitted lawfully to purchase any refreshments. That would be a grand arrangement for those who would come into such a place for such a game; but I doubt if in any part of the country such a game were possible under those conditions. I should like to hear the Minister on that point again when he is replying, stating to what extent an innocent game of cards would be proscribed by this measure, a game such as we have had experience of in an ordinary private room in a licensed premises where people are permitted to gather to pass a few hours on a winter's night. It is the common practice up and down the country in towns and villages. That is one aspect of the matter that we should have explained to us very fully.

I do not think it would be advisable on the Second Reading to go into the Bill in any more detail. It is a very involved piece of legislation, and necessarily so, because of the difficult problems which it seeks to solve. Because of its involved nature, I think it would be necessary to get a fairly long interval before the Committee Stage, so as to have these very important matters fully examined.

Dr. ffrench O'Carroll

I do not think anything would ever prevent us as a nation from gambling. All the same, I think there is general agreement in both Houses and throughout the country that some effort should be made to control gaming and lotteries. I have the greatest sympathy for any Government or Minister tackling this problem, as it is a tremendous task. The Minister said that while the Bill may not be 100 per cent. successful, it will remove certain legal uncertainties. I doubt very much if the Bill will be even 20 per cent. successful and I am almost certain it will create far more legal uncertainties than there are at present. I do not think that should prevent the introduction of the Bill, possibly with amendments.

The Minister was worried about an El Dorado for certain foreigners coming into this country for gaming and lotteries. I think the El Dorado will be for the legal profession and that the courts will see more of it than anyone else. To be fair, we can only do the best we can in setting down a fundamental framework effecting some sort of control. It must necessarily be largely a matter of trial and error. There are many things we would all like to discuss, but we can discuss them more easily on the Committee Stage. I support the suggestion that we should be given a little more time for amendments.

There is one part of the Bill on which I should like to get some information now. Part IV deals with lotteries and begins by saying that no person shall promote or assist in promoting lotteries. Then Sections 22, 23, 24 and 25 continue, saying that a lottery shall be lawful in various special circumstances. Finally, Section 26 says that a lottery shall not be unlawful if it is promoted and conducted wholly within the State in accordance with a permit or licence. May I ask the Minister what was the purpose of putting in Sections 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, if the whole thing comes down to whether the Minister will give a licence or not? I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Minister personally, or on any other Minister associated with the formation of this Bill—I think this Bill has been sponsored by two Governments, so to speak—but it is an impossible position to put a Minister in, that he is given a blanket section on the completely wide open issue of a permit. It must be an appalling position for a Minister to be in. I can see no advantage whatsoever in all the previous sections if it comes down to a question of whether the Minister will give a permit for a lottery. I would like a little more information on that before we come to discuss the amendments.

As we have agreed, it is not a Bill which we should discuss at length on this Stage, but we can look forward to the Committee Stage, when we will do everything we can to make the Bill as workable as possible.

Mr. Cox

Like the other speakers, I frankly feel very doubtful whether this Bill is really necessary at all or, if it is necessary, whether it is the best way to go about securing the ends that it seeks. I also agree completely with what everyone else has said up to now, that it is obviously a Bill for Committee because everything has to be discussed in detail.

At the same time, one does realise that it will be very difficult to discuss each little bit in Committee, if we have only a very vague idea as to the general pattern of the mosaic which we are seeking to construct. I think it is quite clear that members of the Dáil must have felt that very much. They made so many amendments in the Bill originally presented that it really needs a great deal of reconsideration all through.

There are very many sections to which I would certainly like to have set down amendments to raise points for discussion, but there is one particular point which I ought to mention now because it is a point on which I would seek to bring forward amendments. One of the principles which the Bill lays down is that a lottery will be unlawful if it is in any way conducted outside the State. I think we all know that the Mater Hospital in Belfast—which is one of the principal hospitals in Belfast—has been denied by the authorities there the financial assistance, help and support that has been given to all other hospitals there and, as a result, the authorities who administer that hospital have sought funds to provide for its maintenance and endowment by a pool. Under this Bill, that pool would be held, I think, to be illegal— although as the law has stood hitherto, it was within the law. As the Bill stands, it would present the very greatest difficulties in tickets being sold in the Twenty-Six Counties to assist a charity, however deserving and however close it may be to the hearts of the majority of the people in the Twenty-Six Counties, if it were in the Six Counties. That is a major aspect of the Bill to which I would like to refer particularly now, as it would be my intention to move amendments to rectify what I think would be a most unfortunate result of the Bill, if it were passed in its present form. Having said that, I am not going to speak in detail on the Bill.

There is scarcely a section which does not need a great deal of discussion. Reference was made by one Senator to-night to the definition of the word "lottery". Apart altogether from the fact that it is rather difficult to understand why one refers to a "forecast of the past", the definition as now introduced obviously has been devised to meet the evasion which was practised by introducing some small element of skill into competitions which the ordinary common-sense person would say were competitions of chance; but, as now drafted, the effect of this Bill would apparently be to prevent in a great many cases prizes being given for real competitions of skill. In other words, it seems to me that the Bill in this legislation goes to the other extreme and produces an even worse effect. I am not going to go into any further details, but this point is of very great importance.

Mr. McGuire

This Bill is entirely a Committee Bill. I agree with Senator Cox when he refers to the mosaic nature of the sections in the Bill. It is very difficult to get a clear picture as to whether this Bill is, in fact, a loosening or a tightening up of the laws in connection with gaming and lotteries.

We should think a bit about this matter before we get down to work on the sections, so that we can make up our minds as to what way the Bill can be improved and arrive at a general picture in the end which will improve the whole position in connection with lotteries.

There is something to be said for the Bill. I do not know enough about legal matters to be a judge in this particular instance, but from a mere perusal of the Bill, we see that there is quite a number of repeals of enactments in Section 3 of Part I and, again, in Parts I and II of the Schedule to the Bill. There seems to be a large number of repeals of enactments made over long periods of years.

The merit of this piece of legislation would seem to reside in the fact that at least in the 52 sections, we have what there is to be known about gaming and lotteries. That, in itself, is an achievement. At least, we will have in one Bill the law as it stands in connection with such matters as gaming and lotteries.

Professor O'Brien

I agree with all the other speakers that this Bill will require very detailed examination in Committee. It is essentially a lawyer's Bill. I am rather inclined to agree with Senator ffrench O'Carroll that the lawyers will probably do very well out of it when it is passed.

There is one section of the Bill, Section 22, which calls for comment. Merely reading that section without any expert advice, it seems to me that it imposes a very heavy burden, indeed, on the periodical Press in this country. I may be wrong, but the matter is of sufficient public importance to raise it here. There is a distinction in the other sections between lotteries which are legal and illegal because they are permitted by the Minister or by the superintendent of the Garda Síochána but, in Section 22, we seems to have come to something absolutely prohibitive, that is to say, that no lottery is to be advertised in the Press. Nothing is to appear regarding a lottery, except the results of a lottery which are declared not to be unlawful. Does that mean that the ordinary football pool is ruled out completely in all circumstances? It seems to me that, read in that way, the distinction in the rest of the Bill between what is lawful and what is unlawful disappears in Section 22. Under that section, it seems to me that the periodical Press would be greatly impeded in connection with what I would have regarded as a legitimate part of their ordinary business. I agree with Senator Cox that this Bill has been so much amended in the Dáil and is such a patchwork now that possibly my interpretation may be unintentional and may be corrected at a later stage. I suggest that the freedom of the Press should not be limited more than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Murphy

I for one have no doubt whatever as to the need for legislation dealing with games and lotteries. We are aware of the very bad position existing in Dublin and other places in connection with these funfairs and it could be, because of the imminence of legislation, that these places may have become a little more respectable. Nevertheless, I compliment the Minister on bringing in this legislation and I hope that any amendments the Seanad may agree to will not in any way weaken the intentions of the Bill.

There is just one matter on which I have some doubt. I wonder if the Minister would tell us whether consideration was given, in dealing with the sections about lotteries, to the practicability of making it unlawful for children to engage in the sale of lottery tickets in public places. It seems to me that in certain lotteries which are permitted, the sale of tickets cannot take place in public places, but then when we come to lotteries for which a licence has been issued, there is no bar to the sale of these tickets in public places. What I am concerned with is not the sale in public places, but the sale by children. I do not know whether other Senators entertain the same doubts about this matter, but I think it is both unfortunate and undesirable that children should be given tickets and urged by the promoters of worthy lotteries, I am sure, to hawk these tickets around the streets and from door to door, at night usually.

We know that children are given tickets at school. They may be for church buildings or some other worthy object, but I, for one, strongly object to my children being urged to go around the streets and sell these tickets. I think it is wrong that children should be urged to do that. I should like the Minister to tell us whether consideration was given to the practicability of stopping that practice. I think all of us will agree that it is wrong. There may not be the same unanimity of opinion with regard to children going round from neighbour to neighbour selling tickets, but I think we would all agree in deploring the situation which obtains, say, in O'Connell Street and other streets, where you have young people going from persons to persons asking them to buy tickets. I think that is wrong. I had hoped that this Bill might do something about that particular practice.

Much has been made in the discussion of the giving to local authorities of some initiative in regard to the licensing of amusement halls and funfairs. Senators who spoke on this section seemed to think that those local authorities should not be asked to agree to these funfairs, that it should be done centrally. I cannot agree with that viewpoint, because if we look at the matter for a moment, we will appreciate that different towns and different localities might have different views about the desirability of having these funfairs in their boroughs. I do not know whether Dalkey, for instance, might take the same view as Bray. You are faced with those different views. It could have something to do with the attitude of the inhabitants of the locality. Some people feel, in conscience, that these things are morally wrong and I think their views in that respect have a right to be respected. If the people in a locality are dead set against funfairs, the local authorities should be given the power not to permit them in the locality. The Senators who have spoken against the section have not, to my mind, told us exactly the objections they see in that provision, and, failing more convincing evidence that it would be wrong or undesirable, then, I would certainly urge on the Minister to allow that section of the Bill to stand.

Mr. Crosbie

Like Senator Walsh, I must express disquiet at Section 50. This is the section which permits a superintendent of police to examine and open postal packets at the request of a suspicious member of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I think it is quite outrageous that, under any circumstances, any member of the police force in normal times should be permitted to open and examine any postal letters or packages.

I must point out to the Minister that this section goes much further than the actual regulations laid down by the Revenue Commissioners in cases of letter packages which are suspected of containing contraband and goods which are subject to revenue duty. In that case, where a postal packet arrives in this State addressed to a resident here and where the customs authorities in the Post Office suspect that this packet contains dutiable goods of one kind or another, they notify the addressee and request him to attend at the customs section of the Post Office, where the packet will be opened in his presence. Admittedly, Sir, if the addressee does not take advantage of that request and does not turn up, the packet will be ultimately opened in his absence.

It seems to me that this Bill outsteps the bounds of what I think we should look on as the rights of the private individual in this country. I sincerely trust that between now and the Committee Stage, the Minister will give further serious consideration to this particular section.

Mr. Cogan

I agree with Senator ffrench O'Carroll that no legislation passed by this House can have the effect of preventing people from gambling in this country. I will go further and say that no legislation passed in any House in the world would have the effect of preventing people from gambling, because gambling is the very essence of life. You cannot live without taking risks and the person who crosses the street at the present time is gambling with his own life. Practically speaking, every effort of living is an act of gambling.

Having said that, I think it should be said, perhaps, that it is very doubtful if politicians are the best people to restrict or control gambling, because of all the gamblers in society, the politician is, perhaps, the most efficient, or at least the one who practises gambling most frequently. A politician must be a gambler. It has fallen to the politician, as the representative of the people, to decide how gambling should be controlled and regulated and I suppose we have got to do the best we can in the circumstances.

It will be accepted that this Bill is necessary in every sense of the word, in so far as gambling has been carried on in this country over a number of years and has been carried on illegally. Violations of the law, even though they may be crude and ill-considered laws, are undesirable, and it is undesirable that those charged with enforcing the law should be more or less instructed to ignore breaches of the law. For that reason, I think it is desirable that the law governing gambling, lotteries and other such things should be tightened up in so far as it is possible to do so.

When we come to the details of tightening up the law, we find ourselves up against very grave difficulties. I feel—I may be wrong in this —that if this Bill is enacted in its present form without amendment, it will have some peculiar effects. One of the effects will be to prohibit people from sending out of this country Hospital Sweep tickets. Section 34 of the Bill states:—

"(1) No person shall send or attempt to send out of the State any ticket, counterfoil or coupon for use in a lottery or any money for the purchase of, or any money representing the purchase price of, a ticket or chance in a lottery or a prize won in a lottery, or any document relating to the purchase or sale of, or indicating the identity of the holder of, any such ticket or chance of the winner of any such prize."

It would appear, on the face of it, that that section would have the effect of prohibiting the sending out from this country by post of sweep tickets. I suppose we must assume that they must be described in law as lottery tickets. However, I suppose that is a matter which will be considered.

Dr. McHugh

This Bill does not apply.

Mr. Cogan

I am entirely against the provisions of the section which seeks to place upon the local authority the onus of deciding whether gaming should be permitted or not in their areas. I agree with Senator Hayes that a grave injustice might be inflicted if a person who had been engaged in that business were, by a motion of the council or failure of the council to pass a resolution, put completely out of business after the passing of this Act. There is no provision for compensation or anything else. That would seem to be a grave injustice. In addition to that, it is very doubtful if any useful purpose is served by having this power placed in the hands of local authorities. I think it would be far better to allow any citizen or group of citizens, or company, who wish to carry on this business to apply to the courts for a licence to operate an amusement hall or any business of that kind. The courts would be fair and impartial. If there was a local opinion against the granting of such a licence, it could be put forward in the courts and the objections could be stated there and would, I am sure, receive very full consideration.

There is in this particular part of the Bill one sub-section which I find it difficult to understand. Section 3 says that a local authority may, by resolution, adopt this part in respect of the whole or a specified part of its administrative area, and may by resolution rescind such adoption. Sub-section (2) of the same section says that for the purpose of this section the administrative area of a council or of a county shall not include any borough, urban district or town. As far as the borough or urban district is concerned, I assume that it would be dealt with by the urban or borough council, but as far as a town is concerned which is not an urban town with an urban council, and which is not a borough, of course, there does not seem to be any provision made for it. I do not know whether it is a typographical error or not, but it seems that the wording is so vague that it would have the effect of preventing this resolution from operating in respect of a town which has not got an urban council.

One section of the Bill I would warmly applaud, that is the section that prohibits cheating in regard to every form of gaming. Whatever we may say about the desirability or otherwise of gambling, everyone will agree that anything in the nature of fraud or dishonesty or deliberate cheating should be dealt with as sternly as possible. If the chances are fair, everybody knows what he is doing, but, if they are not, a crime, or at least a serious offence, is committed which should be dealt with.

Our approach to this whole question should be to regard our people as adult and free citizens capable, in the main, of looking after themselves. It is only in respect of children, or people in their formative years, that protection should be required. There should also, of course, be protection against fraud and dishonesty; but if people are prepared to put down stakes in regard to any coming event, whether it is a toss of a coin or anything else, there cannot be any serious objection.

I do not know whether this Bill will have the effect, when enacted, of making illegal the time-honoured and old-established game of pitch-and-toss at the country cross-roads. That game has been widely practised and does very often involve very serious losses for the individual concerned. Many might regard it as illegal, but I would say that, if the forces of the law were to be employed to suppress it, they would be kept fairly busy. In these matters, a certain amount of common sense is desirable. The main object should be to see that if gaming or lotteries or gambling are carried out, they are carried out with a certain amount of restraint. The same point is important with regard to amusement halls and things of that kind—that they are conducted in a way that does not interfere with or annoy the people in the district.

It is a strange thing that we impose fairly rigid restrictions in regard to lotteries here and insist that the person running a lottery must obtain a permit from the superintendent of the Guards, or, if the amount is higher than £300, from the court; but anyone in this country can start a weekly paper and can run a lottery for a prize without any limit, as far as I know. It appears that there is nothing in this Act or in any legislation to prevent that being done. In addition to that, it would seem that newspapers published and printed outside this country can be imported and run lotteries for very high amounts. If there is anything wrong in running a lottery for a very high prize fund, it should be equally wrong in regard to those newspapers.

There are in this Bill a great many anomalies and a great number of contradictions. I think that it should be given very careful consideration by this House in regard to the details of the sections to ensure that as far as possible it is not made more illogical or more unworkable than it actually is.

Professor Hayes

Before Senator McHugh intervenes, may I say that neither Item 6 nor Item 7 is urgent? Would the House agree to sit until 10.30 to let us conclude the Second Stage of this Bill?

An Cathaoirleach

Agreed.

Dr. McHugh

Everybody has referred to this as a Committee Bill and has been proceeded on Second Stage to discuss details of the sections. Since it is rather late, I will confine my remarks to just two points which I think are of fairly general interest and would seem to touch on some principle.

One of them is that there seems to be a certain amount of anonymity allowed to the object of a lottery. For example, there is no stipulation that the beneficiary of a lottery, considered legal by this Bill, must be a resident of the Twenty-Six Counties, that is, the area under our jurisdiction, and there is no indication in the Bill, that I can find, at any rate, that the object of the lottery must be located in this part of the national territory.

Just to amplify my point, you will find, under Section 33, while a licensee must have his name on the ticket, the beneficiary's name or the object for which the ticket is being sold need not necessarily be on the ticket at all. I dislike this kind of anonymity about beneficiaries or objects. It may be that this is designed to let in the Mater Hospital, Belfast. I am sure it is a very deserving object, but I would point out that, in widening this Bill for this purpose, you also let in what the Minister has already described as the crooked promoter from abroad. I can see promoters from Samarkand to San Francisco descending on this country to promote lotteries for the purpose of setting straight the Tower of Pisa or to make crooked the steeple in some remote part of Europe. I think that is important because there should be a provision of some kind that the beneficiaries should be resident in the Twenty-Six Counties, or that the object for which the funds are being collected should be in the area under the jurisdiction of the State.

There is another point which I am sure has struck other Senators, and that is that there does not seem to be anything in the Bill to prevent a large organisation, with branches in different areas, and with, perhaps, a number of charitable purposes, all very estimable in their own way, from running perhaps 20 or 30 lotteries in the same week, in all of which they would have a ceiling of £500, but if you take them as a total, you will find that hundreds of thousands of pounds can be taken in by a particular organisation.

I will have more to say on the Committee Stage. It seems to me that too much power is being given to the Garda superintendent and too little to the public who may have objections to lotteries in their area through canvassing by children, which can be just as annoying as amusement parks.

Mr. Everett

I welcome the criticism of Senators and the points raised can be dealt with on the Committee Stage. I want, however, to remove impressions which may have been created by Senator Hawkins. He said we were taking rights away from certain individuals. The position is quite the opposite. I am trying to establish the right of a person at a carnival to play pongo, a game that has been prohibited. We have known cases where not alone the promoters but the members of the committee of a carnival being run for charitable purposes were prosecuted at the end of the carnival. Not alone were the committee members, who were doing the work voluntarily, fined, but the owner was also fined.

We have had consultations with professional showmen and amusement caterers. We recognise that they are an important element in the community. They are part of the life of rural areas. They have asked us to put these sections in the Bill for their own protection.

The reason local councils have been given the right to appear before district justices is that we have had representations from seaside places in County Dublin where amusements and carnivals are carried on, and where people have found themselves unable to sleep until after 2 a.m. because of the noise of loud-speakers and juke boxes. We have also had representations from the business people of Talbot Street protesting against loud-speakers and amusements going on from early morning and interfering with their trade and customers. In those cases, the local authority will have the right to appear before the district justice and make their objections. In my own constituency, we have Glendalough, and the public authority would object to any carnival coming there. I am sure that would be the wish of every Senator in this House. That is why we are giving the right to public authorities to come before a district justice.

In regard to licensed premises, we are now amending the law so as to give the owner of a licensed premises the right to have an innocent game of whist on his premises. Up to the present he, or even a hotel owner, could be prosecuted if he did so. In future, they can do so, where they are deriving no profit.

It has been suggested that we should not allow children to sell tickets. I have given that matter very serious consideration and I was expecting, if I decided to prohibit children from selling tickets, to be lacerated in the Seanad for interfering with rights and taking away the rights of the individual. I thought it would be too drastic at the present time to take away those rights from the people.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th December.