Gaming and Lotteries Bill, 1955—Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The Minister may bring into operation any Part or section of the Act separately or together with other Parts or sections and may fix different days for the coming into operation of the various Parts and sections: Provided always that Part IV of the Act shall not come into operation before June 1st, 1956.
I propose that the Minister should have power to bring the various parts of the Bill into operation on different dates. I understand that, in certain lotteries or competitions, things like football games and so on are involved and the dates may vary. It might be beneficial if the Minister at least had power to say that a particular part of the Bill would operate in respect of a particular kind of competition at different times.
The sooner this Act is brought into operation the better so as to end the present "toleration" of unlawful practices. A short interim period will be necessary so as to permit of arrangements being made for District Court hearings of applications for certificates for gaming licences and lottery licences and for bringing to the notice of local authorities and others their functions under the Act. I intend to fix the date of commencement within one month of the passing of the Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In line 30 to delete "forecasts" and substitute "guesses or estimates".
This is merely a matter of grammar and style. In the Bill, the word "forecast" is used in respect to an estimate as to some past event. I have looked up a number of dictionaries and can find no authority whatever to use the expression "forecast" in respect of a past event. It relates solely to future events. Therefore, I suggest the use of other words which are not open to that criticism; I suggest either a "guess" or an "estimate". It is a pity that we should use in a statute a word which has never been used in that way before.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. I have brought the suggested words "guesses or estimates" to the notice of the draftsman who is satisfied that the word "forecasts" is used in the same sense in Section 26 of the British Betting and Lotteries Act of 1934 which relates to restrictions on certain types of prize competitions. As between choices of different words meaning the same thing, I feel that in legislation sponsored by the Government the words of the draftsman attached to the office of the Attorney-General should prevail.
I hope that Senator Cox will press this amendment. I feel as strongly as he does, that it makes us look ridiculous—even if we appeared ridiculous in a previous Act. I think the amendment is admirable, that it makes the position quite clear and that we lose nothing. I would like to see it accepted by the Government or inserted in the Bill by the Seanad.
Mr. Douglas
I should like to support the amendment. The Minister has said that the word "forecast" appears in a British Act, but surely even the British draftsman may go wrong.
The difficulty might be met by changing the order of the words. If we said "forecasts of future events or the results of past events which are not yet ascertained or not yet generally known," would it not meet the case?
Would the Senator withdraw the amendment and let the matter be considered between now and the Report Stage?
I will let it stand over to the Report Stage. I am not keen on withdrawing it, because I think it is just silly to use words that do not mean what they say. I will raise it again on the Report Stage.
I am not keen one way or the other. I have to accept the advice of the Attorney-General. If the Seanad wishes, I will put in the words.
That means the Minister will accept it?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In line 31, to delete "yet" where it occurs and substitute "then" in each case.
I suggest that the word "yet" could be interpreted as the date of coming into force of the Act and that the word "then" would be more appropriate for that reason.
As between the word "yet" used by the parliamentary draftsman in line 31 and the word "then" suggested by Senator Walsh, I am advised that there is no real difference in meaning and in the circumstances I propose to retain the word "yet" chosen by the draftsman, who is the technical expert in such matters.
If the word "yet" is not the most appropriate word, would the Minister consider other words that would be more suitable? I could have suggested other words.
The Senator must know that I am in the hands of the technical draftsman and must accept his words.
Do I take it that the technical draftsman has considered this?
We will put the Senator's point again before the draftsman.
I will withdraw the amendment and can put it down again for the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In line 36, after "charge" to add "but does not include a building or portion of a building used for a private residence".
This definition appears to have been taken from the Road Traffic Act of 1933. In that Act, a public place is defined as meaning "any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge". While that definition might be quite suitable for a public place because of the fact that it must be with vehicles, it might not be just the most appropriate definition in the case under this Bill because of the fact that it might refer to a person's private residence. The public may have access by permission to a person's private residence. Just as the Englishman's home is his castle, I am anxious that an Irishman's home shall be protected under this amendment.
I cannot accept this amendment. I am advised that it is unnecessary and that, being unnecessary, it is undesirable in that it would only throw doubt on the meaning of the other words, not only in this Bill but perhaps in the Road Traffic Act from which it was taken. The Bill provides that the Gardaí may arrest without warrant anybody whom they find conducting gaming, contrary to the Act, in a public place. The definition of "public place" obviously does not, in the ordinary way, cover a private residence, for the general public have not access to it either as of right or by permission. The only case I can think of where the contrary might hold would be some large building such as a castle where the public are admitted for sightseeing. I do not know if we have any such case in Ireland, but if we have all I can say is that they should not start promoting unlawful gaming there. This definition is, as I have said, in the Road Traffic Act and all the provisions about insurance, driving licences and so on hinge on it. It has, at least as far as we are concerned in this Bill, stood the test of time and of court proceedings.
The Minister will agree that it is access with vehicles, which makes the very big difference.
I am advised that the amendment is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 5:—
To delete sub-section (3).
I propose that this sub-section be deleted, on the grounds that it seems to be just nonsense. It commences:—
"Gaming shall not be unlawful if no stake is hazarded by the players..."
The definition of a lottery involves a stake. Why, then, is it necessary to have a solemn section to say that gaming shall not be unlawful, if no stake is hazarded; in other words, shall not be unlawful, if there is no gaming? On the other hand, if the sub-section reads that gaming shall be lawful, no matter what stakes are set between the players, provided they do not set the stake with the promoter, then it seems to me to be leaving the door wide open. Whichever interpretation one comes to on sub-section (3), it does not seem either to make sense or to attain any useful object, and I think it may produce considerable confusion.
I should have thought the section would be welcomed by the House. Its purpose is to give permission to people in hotels to have an innocent game of whist, or some other minor game, so that they will not be prosecuted when they have these games when they are not for their own benefit, but are a matter of amusement. I explained that in the other House.
Do I understand from that that, if I promote some kind of competition or lottery, and I myself derive no benefit from it, all the players can bet as much as they like with one another, or can have any stakes they like as between themselves and that that will not be unlawful?
I do not propose to accept amendment No. 5. As I explained in the other House, the purpose of sub-section (3) of Section 4 is to permit without fear of police prosecution the promotion of or the provision of facilities for gaming such as whist drives or bridge drives or billiard tournaments where the gaming is of an incidental nature and it is primarily carried on for sociable purposes. I would have thought that such a relaxation would be welcomed by everybody. Our object in this Bill is to stop people from being induced to take part to excess in gambling games which may be organised for the personal enrichment of the promoter. At the same time, we do not want to interfere with harmless gaming of a minor nature.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I am not one to enter into a legal battle on this issue, but I should like to put my point of view. Sub-section (1) of this section would really make it illegal—unless it is otherwise provided for—to have any form of gaming, say, bookmakers. I understand that bookmakers work in such a way that there is not an equal chance. I understand that the margin of odds is so arranged that there is a margin of profit for the bookmaker. I suggest that, according to sub-section (1) of this section, bookmakers, as such, would be illegal, as I understand there is not an equal chance.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (b).
The amendment is to exclude paragraph (b) which permits a fun-fair or circus or travelling show to carry on for only 10 days. In many parts of the country there are instances where a travelling show may come for a longer period. Sometimes the first few days are devoted to a local charity. It would curtail, possibly, the benefits that might be derived by such charities, if the period were limited to 10 days, as set out in this paragraph.
Although a travelling show may come into a place on a certain day, it can happen that three or four days may elapse before they inform the local sergeant. Then they have ten days from the time they notify the sergeant that they will start gambling on a particular night.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (c).
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to refer also to amendment No. 9, which seeks to delete paragraph (e), because it is complementary. Amendment No. 7 refers to paragraph (c) of Section 6 (1) of the Bill, which refers to the stake. Amendment No. 9 refers to paragraph (e) of the same section and sub-section of the Bill and refers to the prize of 10/-. The reason I put these amendments down is that, although the amount of the stake and the prize is limited, the number of players in the game is not limited. There is no relationship, therefore, between the amount of the prize and the amount of the pool provided by the players in the game. It is fairly safe to assume that in all games organised at circuses or carnivals, the maximum stake of 6d. will, in fact, be the minimum charge for a chance. Thus, if 100 people participate in a game and pay 6d. each, after providing for a prize of 10/- there would be a profit of £2. A profit of 400 per cent. seems to me to be rather exorbitant. It seems unfair that the Act does not provide that a percentage of the stakes should be the prize. I am prepared to withdraw both of these amendments if the Minister will guarantee that provision will be made to establish a fair ratio between the amount of the stake and the amount of the prize.
I am informed by the showmen that 6d. is usually the maximum price. I am informed that the usual amount in the country is 1d. or 2d. and that 3d. is the maximum. I have personal experience of the matter in rural areas. It is not for the purpose of a big prize that we are going to encourage people to take part. I am sure my predecessor had many distressing letters on this matter from wives and people here in Dublin City, letters imploring the Government to introduce some Bill which would have the effect of not inducing a higher prize. If we keep the prize at 10/-, there will not be many people to continue at the game and there will not be many people even to give 6d. when they find that, if they win, they will only get a prize of 10/-. As far as I know, in the rural areas a price of 6d. will not often be asked, except, perhaps, in the case of a very large excursion day for the circus and amusement people. Only after consultation with showmen did I agree to put this in the Bill.
Whether the stake is one penny or 6d. seems irrelevant. Surely the essence of fair gaming is that there should be some just ratio between the amount of the prize and the amount subscribed by the players? Whether the stake is 6d. or 1d., if the person running the game gets 400 per cent. or 300 per cent. profit it does not seem fair but, rather, an invitation to fleece the general public.
I think Senator McHugh is overlooking the fact that the purpose of this Bill is to curb gaming as far as possible. It seems to me that his argument would, to some extent, encourage it. He is arguing on the relationship between the stake and the prize money.
If you had a position whereby the stake would be more and you compelled the promoter to give as much as possible by way of prize, surely that would simply encourage the people? You can quite well imagine what the position would be at one of these shows at a circus if the stake were 3d. and the prize £100. I do not think Senator McHugh would really desire that. I can quite see his point. He is not too keen about leaving the promoters with a great profit. However, the limiting of the stake and the prize is, I think, the best way possible to curb gaming and also—to some extent, I should imagine—to reduce the profits on these lotteries.
With respect to the last speaker, his argument is that the best way of discouraging gaming is to ensure that the promoter makes an exorbitant profit and that the public are consequently fleeced.
A prize of 10/- will regulate the number of persons who will purchase a 6d. stake.
Mr. Douglas
I do not altogether agree with the amendments put down by Senator McHugh, but he has got a point. I think that Senator Walsh's amendment, amendment No. 8, would meet Senator McHugh's objection.
I think it would, but the trouble is that I have no guarantee that Senator Walsh's amendment will be passed if my amendment is withdrawn. I will withdraw the amendment and put it down for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1) (c), line 37, to add "the promoter shall not collect more than double the amount of the prize money in each game and"
It is wrong to curb the stake the player will place and not to curb the profits which the promoters may derive out of it. If the promoter can use the excuse set out in this Bill, that he is limited to a prize of 10/- and that the sky is the limit in relation to the number of cards he may sell to the players, 100 per cent. profit is certainly a fair profit. It is the practice in any part of the country that I know of that the winner gets half the pool. If the promoter in a case like this gets half the pool, I think he is doing very well indeed. I would ask the Minister to consider the amendment.
On reconsidering this matter, I thought that the maximum of 10/- would not induce a large number to come to play. I have practical experience for the past 15 or 20 years in connection with fetes and unless you offer a very substantial prize a very large number will not remain.
Does the Minister see any reason why the amendment should not be accepted?
Nobody will remain when the prize is small. What induces them to remain is the prospect of winning £5.
Mr. Douglas
I have no practical experience in regard to these matters, but I noticed that at dances where raffles are held occasionally a very large number of people buy tickets, even though they know that the prize is merely a bottle of whiskey or a box of chocolates. I hope the Minister will consider the amendment suggested by Senator Walsh. I think it is a very fair and reasonable one.
I would be very much in favour of accepting this amendment also. I do not think that the case made by the Minister is a convincing one, because, even though the prize of 10/- would not be regarded as an alluring one, still there would be many games on the same occasion.
The Minister based most of his arguments in refusing to accept these amendments on the opinion of the Attorney-General, but he is basing his refusal to accept this amendment on his own personal experience. The Minister says he has practical experience. Suppose a circus comes to a town and 2,000 people attend. Suppose they have a lottery and sell tickets for 6d. or 3d. each, if the Minister prefers that, at least 50 per cent. of the people may buy tickets, possibly more. Some of those people may buy two, three or four tickets and there may be a profit of 1,000 per cent. on that game. Yet the Minister argues that, by confining it to 10/- there is a safeguard. No matter what experience the Minister has, and since he is not basing his opinion on that of the Attorney-General, which is probably a good thing, the Minister should have some regard for the arguments put forward by Senators Douglas, McHugh and Walsh.
This refers to gaming, and not lotteries.
The difference is so thin that it is easy to change from a lottery to a game. One can even sell song sheets.
I think the Minister ought to consider the views expressed on this section. I notice we have provided that no player may win more than the value of 10/- in each game. I think it could be arranged that you could have prizes that would win 10/- each, and in that way the limit of the prize money which the Minister is using to discourage this gaming could be overcome to some degree. I think there is some merit in Senator Walsh's amendment.
I can quite see the Minister's point of view also in regard to discouraging gaming by keeping down the prize money. I would suggest that the matter be reconsidered, because it could be that some compromise might be reached to meet all our viewpoints. We are all agreed on the aim we are out to achieve. We might disagree as to how exactly it could be possible to accomplish it.
I agree with what I might call the philosophy of Senator Walsh's amendment. There are some points that have to be considered. One is that the Bill, I think, quite properly, speaks of a person not winning more than the value of a certain amount. In a great many of these things, the prizes might be something not money, but some kind of an article. Applying Senator Walsh's amendment to that, I think one should in some way bring the element of value into it. A second point has just occurred to me that the promoters would not make more than 50 per cent. I have gone into the question with some of the people who run these travelling shows. A great many of them eke out a pretty miserable existence. The pay the people working get is extraordinarily low and the people performing are generally grossly underpaid. They have shown an extraordinary loyalty and goodness to one another. It is very often by side-shows that the promoter keeps the show going. While I agree in principle with Senator Walsh, that there ought to be some connection between the amount received and the value of the prize, I doubt if the proportion which he has suggested is allowing enough to the person who runs the fair. After all, these fairs bring a good deal of fun and enjoyment to local people. I would agree that the whole of this section deserves a good deal of thinking over on several aspects.
I can safely say that, between now and the Report Stage, I will have all the points considered to see whether we can meet the wishes of Senators. I am entirely in favour of Senator Walsh's point of view.
Where there is a limit of 10/-, there is a great deal of cost involved in running the game. Even if the profit rate is high, the expenses are high in proportion to the amount involved, and the net profit is low. I think it will have the total effect the Minister envisages in the Bill, if he makes the maximum 10/-. If there were a minimum of £5, I would be inclined to agree with Senator Walsh and Senator McHugh that you should then institute some profit margin, but when the amount is so small, a great deal of the profits will be eaten into by the overheads. I think we will find that these games that were great money spinners, as the promoters called them themselves, will not be as effective when they are restricted under the Bill to 10/-.
I will have the case reconsidered for the Report Stage.
Senator Burke must be aware that there may be 40 or 50 games played one after another on the same night—as the Minister apparently knows. Even last week, I had some experience of this, when there was a local bazaar. I am aware that the winner gets half the pool, but the promoter derives considerable benefit from it. If there is a section in a Bill limiting the amount of the prize money, I think it is only right there should be a corresponding section limiting the profits which the promoter should earn from it. There is no doubt the section confers a benefit on a promoter by limiting the money which he will have to pay out, without putting any limit whatsoever on the amount he can take in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In subsection (1), to delete paragraph (d).
With your permission I would like to speak about amendments Nos. 11 and 14 together. This is really the same argument as that which I made in relation to Section 7, which states:
"(1) Gaming carried on as part of a carnival, bazaar, sports meeting, local festival, exhibition or other like event shall not be unlawful gaming if...
(d) the stake in each game is not more than 6d. for each player, and...
(f) no player may win more than the value of 10/- in each game, and..."
I think exactly the same argument applies. You have to establish some sort of just proportion between the pool divided by the players and the amount to be received by the promoters.
I am prepared to withdraw this and put it in for the Report Stage, but I would like to have some assurance that it will be seriously reconsidered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (1) (d), line 10, to add "the promoter shall not collect more than double the amount of the prize money in each game and".
The same would apply here. I am prepared to withdraw this also, if the Minister seriously considers the matter before the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (e), line 12, before "and" to insert "except accompanied by a parent or someone in loco parentis to that person”
I move this amendment relating to children under the age of 16. I consider it necessary to discourage young people from spending money on these functions, but paragraph (e) is a bit too drastic. One can envisage an occasion when children under 16 would be accompanied by their parents at carnivals or local bazaars. There would be nothing wrong in allowing children of 14 or 15 to take part to a certain extent in these games under the vigilance of their parents or of persons in loco parentis. This could also be the case at seaside resorts where families come for a holiday and like to go to bazaars and carnivals. I would ask the Minister to consider the advisability of relaxing the law he has in mind.
It will be noticed that there is also an age limit in a preceding sub-section to which we have not referred at all. It is in Section 6. It may be asked why we did not propose a similar amendment to Section 6, sub-section (1) paragraph (d). The reason, as far as I am concerned, is that I regret there is a fundamental difference between gaming carried on at circuses and travelling shows and gaming carried on at carnivals, bazaars, sports meetings or local festivals.
I support Senator Kissane. I have memories of being brought as a child to many bazaars at which there were many competitions for children for various stakes. I think it would be quite undesirable, and rather a foolish thing, to forbid children to attend bazaars and charitable organisations of that kind, or participate in things of that kind. As Senator Kissane suggests, if children are accompanied by somebody who is looking after them, very little harm can come to them.
It seems to me to be wrong that the State should take upon itself something which is a responsibility of parents. Parents have a primary responsibility to look after their children. It is bad in principle to incorporate a provision in a Bill that will not, possibly, be enforced to the letter of the law, in the case of a bazaar or a parochial festival of some description. It seems desirable that children should go to these fixtures from time to time: they have a certain educational value. Unlike adults, children have no responsibilities. The amount of money which they are allowed to have from the parents is very limited, and if the parents feel they should be permitted to spend one shilling or two shillings on a game, and if they are accompanied by such persons, I feel it is too harsh of the Minister to insist that any child under 16 years should not be permitted to take part in such a game.
I find it difficult to follow the line of reasoning in this amendment. I agree that children should be allowed to attend a carnival. The amendment means that any child of any age can take part in the gaming——
With the permission of the parent.
How will that work? Have the words "in loco parentis” any particular meaning? Is the onus thrown upon the promoter of the carnival, or bazaar, or sports, to find out if the particular adult with the child stands to the child in loco parentis? I do not know how you would work that.
I think the police will have some difficulty in working the Bill as it stands. It seems to me that, in the case of children under 16 years, it would be better if they did not indulge in gaming. The amendment means that there will be no age limit at all, provided the child is accompanied, presumably, by some adult. If I bring my neighbour's children to a bazaar, I do not know whether or not I am in loco parentis: possibly I am. However, it seems to me to put a very difficult obligation on the promoters— that, when a particular child takes part in the gaming, the defence should be made that the child is accompanied by a particular person who is to the child in the position of a parent. I do not know how you are going to prove that. If you insert this amendment in its present form, it would merely mean that any child could take part in any game which is contemplated by Section 7. First and foremost, it seems bad that children should indulge in gaming and, secondly, it would be entirely unworkable, in the particular circumstances in the amendment, unless the child is accompanied by an adult. Even that is difficult to prove. I have gone into carnivals with my own children and have been successfully evaded and avoided by them for the rest of the evening—after they had got money from me.
If Senator Hayes's only objection to this amendment are the words "in loco parentis”, then it would be possible now or at a later stage to arrange for the substitution of the words “an adult appointed by the parents.” Let us examine this amendment not for the purpose of finding fault with it, but for the purpose of finding fault with the section, if the amendment is not accepted. If the amendment is not accepted, is this not the position? Suppose any of us should find ourselves in Lisdoonvarna, Bundoran or Kilkee on a wet day and suppose we go some place there where a game of “pongo” is being played. Suppose we have young children under 16 years with us and suppose we indulge in the simple game of “pongo” or give pennies to the children to play that game. Technically, we are then breaking the law, as this section stands. Senator Hayes knows that. It is to avoid that difficulty that Senator Kissane has picked on this amendment. If this amendment is not accepted we shall be bringing this Bill into contempt. There has been a great deal of evasion, and the previous legislation was so bad that it was being broken every day of the week. Now that we are trying to amend the position, it would appear that, in little ways like that, the law will be brought into contempt again. Any law that is not reasonable or cannot be enforced should not be passed.
Consider the position of people on holidays in places where there are games and gaming shows. The children will go in and then they will break the law. That is bad. It is infringing the rights of parents and the liberty of people. It is the moral responsibility of parents to have some regard as to what is good for their children. That is their responsibility and it is one on which the State cannot encroach. In my view, it is wrong to interfere to that degree with the rights of parents in an issue like this. The playing of simple games is not criminal. The amendment should be accepted. If it is only the legal quibble existing between Senator Hayes and Senator Kissane, I submit they should be able to arrange the matter between themselves.
I oppose the amendment. I do not think it is the intention of the Seanad to encourage children to attend at gambling. There is nothing to prevent children from going to a carnival or a place of amusement, but not to take part in gambling. I am sure it is not the wish of any Senator that they should take part in gambling. It is not the parent who would be prosecuted; it is the promoter. I ask the Seanad to accept the Bill and so prevent the encouragement of children under 16 years to take part in gambling. We have heard of things which have happened. We have heard of juvenile delinquents. There is nothing to prevent adults from buying tickets. Surely we want to prevent children of that age from taking part in some of the gambling at machines in Dublin, apart altogether from anything else? I cannot accept the amendment.
Senator Hayes raises the problem of how a promoter is to know if the children are under or over 16 years. It is a difficult thing to enforce. It would be unreasonable to expect that the child would have to bring a birth certificate to show his age. Local charity bazaars are a very common thing in country districts and are run by a voluntary committee. That voluntary committee would be perfectly familiar with the parents of the children and it would not be at all difficult to enforce the position, as far as the country areas are concerned. It seems to me that young children should be permitted to attend a function for charity. Very often, these people are required to assist in promoting the entertainment. The amount they will have to spend will be so limited that it will not make much of a difference.
The same law applies to bookies' shops and licensed premises. The sergeant will use his common sense. There are not many cases of prosecutions of children for being in bookies' shops or on licensed premises.
Mr. Douglas
I have given a great deal of consideration to this amendment. In fact, at the beginning, I thought I was rather opposed to it. My only experience of what I presume are carnivals and bazaars are church carnivals and bazaars. I can remember very well going as a child to these bazaars and paying 3d. or 6d., or even 1d., for the right to take part in a tub-dip. I also remember buying balls to throw at coconuts and buying large rings and trying to throw them over toy motorcars or dolls on stands. It seems to me that, under this section, no child under 16 years will be allowed to take part in any gaming at a carnival: I am sure that that, in fact, constitutes gaming because you are taking a chance when you pay 3d to throw a ring over an article which, under this section, is worth no more than 10/-. Surely it is not intended to prevent children from taking part in Church carnivals?
I have been thinking that a lot of Senators are speaking out of their depth, or are speaking in their innocence. I think they would need to have regard to the situation which has been in existence here in Dublin and which this Bill is trying to curb. We are all in agreement with the general principle that that sort of "dive" in Dublin where some people spend so much of their time should cease to exist. It is all very well to say that a child accompanied by parents, or somebody who is standing to that child in loco parentis, should be allowed to participate. Here again we are being a bit too innocent. That could be overcome as easily as taking kids into a match. We have all seen children outside the gates where a match is being held. They come along and say: “Take me in, Mister”. Similarly, now it will be: “Stand by me, Mister.” Just because some adult is standing beside them, they can take part in these games.
Church bazaars are all right. I suppose children are usually accompanied by adults. In my opinion, the Church bazaar is a very small part of the problem we are dealing with here in this Gaming and Lotteries Bill. I strongly support the Minister in his opposition to this amendment. I suggest to the House that it would defeat and seriously weaken the purpose of this Bill if we allowed children accompanied by parents, or any adult, to take part in these games. I think it would be wholly undesirable. I ask Senators to have regard to the situation existing in Dublin and neighbouring seaside resorts for the past few years.
This amendment applies only to carnivals and bazaars, where the person arranging for holding them derives no personal profit. Consequently, Senator Murphy's remarks do not apply.
Actually, Senator Murphy has tried to make a case against this amendment which the Minister did not make himself. That is not common sense at all to me. If the amendment had some regard to Section 6, it might have some impact on me, but, since it applies to Section 7, it does not impress me at all. I think the amendment should be accepted.
I am not at all convinced by Senator Murphy's argument. He tried to say that we were innocent people to put down this amendment and suggested that we had no experience. There may be evils which Senator Murphy knows of and about which I do not know, because I do not live in Dublin—evils which this section is designed to remedy. Certainly, to infringe on the liberty of parents to the degree intended by this section is not good. I still think the Minister should accept the amendment.
We cannot accept the amendment. My predecessor and myself have received heaps of complaints about children being allowed to attend these places. I am sure that if Senators on the other side had an opportunity of reading a few of these pitiful letters which we have received, they would understand why we cannot accept the amendment.
I do not want to delay the House in connection with this amendment, but the Minister referred to a point which made me come to the conclusion that, even if this section is enacted as it stands at present, there will be wholesale evasion of it, because it will be possible for parents of adults to come along with the children and buy tickets for them, and they will actually be taking part then in the gaming in an indirect way. Would it not be as well, then, to have a position where the children themselves, under the vigilance of their parents, would be able to indulge in the pleasure— because a pleasure it would be to their young minds—of participating directly in these games at carnivals and bazaars? We had not in mind any place in Dublin or any "dives" that Senator Murphy referred to. We have in mind what is mentioned in the section of the Bill—carnivals and bazaars, where those conducting those functions make no profit for themselves.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Would the Minister have the matter considered again between now and the Report Stage?
I do not want to mislead the Senator in any way. From the information I have and from the correspondence which I and my predecessor have received, I would be prepared to withdraw the Bill sooner than encourage children to gamble, or give them any facilities for gambling. As I have already said, if the Senator had seen some of the letters which I have seen, I know he would be the first to agree with me on this matter.
Senator Kissane said that adults can buy the stakes or tickets for these games for the children. I think that is the case. The parent is there. You say that the children should be allowed to take part, if the parent or somebody in loco parentis is there. Then you come along with the section as it stands and you say: “The parent can buy the ticket for the child.” Surely that meets the purpose of the amendment? The amendment would open the door completely.
Why should you ask the parent to evade the law?
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Senator Carton has been unsuccessful in reaching the House owing to an accident. I think his amendment, No. 15, will have to be left over until the next day.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (1), paragraph (f), says that no player shall win more than the value of 10/- in each game. May I suggest, Sir, that that paragraph, instead of legalising games, will have the effect of making certain games, such as bagatelle, completely illegal? The Minister has experience of the game and I have played it myself. It is a game where the pool is cumulative and people play until they are all satisfied. Then, whoever has the highest score gets half the pool, which may be as much as £5. Therefore, paragraph (f) will make that game illegal. It may be argued that bagatelle, like snooker, is a game of skill, but a game, according to Section 2, means the playing of a game of skill or chance, or partly of skill or chance, for stakes deposited by the players.
I should like to know from the Minister what effect paragraph (f) will have on the game of bagatelle and what effect it will have on shooting galleries, which are such a popular feature of bazaars, and in which, as in bagatelle, the highest scorer takes half the pool, which, again, may be as high as £5. These are popular games at local bazaars and the fact of making them illegal will bring the law into contempt. Do Senators think that the local sergeant will go into a parochial hall where these games are being played and prosecute the parish priest?
If the Senator will read Section 6, he will see that bagatelle is not an unlawful game. It is only what is prohibited under Section 4 that is not allowed.
I know that, but the effect of paragraph (f) of Section 7 will make it illegal, because it is a cumulative game.
If the Senator will read Section 4, he will find that unlawful games are defined there.
Whether it is regarded as a legal game or not, the fact is that it cannot be played, and neither can there be a shooting gallery. The fact that they are regarded as legal in Section 4 is one matter, but paragraph (f) of Section 7 makes it illegal to play them.
Mr. Douglas
I should like to ask the Minister would the participation of a child in a "bran tub" at a parochial bazaar be a contravention of this section of the Bill. I will not call them harmless games, because they are gambling, but they do take place at Church festivals and would the clergyman or the parish priest be prosecuted if he allowed a child to take part in a "bran tub"?
Section 6 permits games that would be considered unlawful under Section 4.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In sub-section (1), line 26, before "an" to insert "an Irish citizen or".
As the Bill stands, it states that a qualified individual, and only a qualified individual, can promote or provide facilities for gaming under Section 4. Now, I visualise people who have been out of the country for over a year. For instance, in the West of the country, as the House is well aware, a great percentage of our people have to emigrate. When they come home, they may buy a hall, an hotel or a business premises. Apparently, those people who have been out of the State for some months would be excluded, under the section, from promoting, assisting to promote, or providing facilities for gaming. Apart from other considerations, I wonder is it constitutional that an Irish citizen should be deprived of those rights? For that reason, I ask the Minister to include what I regard as elementary justice. An Irish citizen should have the same rights, irrespective of whether or not he has been out of the country for 12 months.
I wonder if the Senator realises what he is opening up? It is the show people who are paying their rents and taxes here who should be facilitated. If the amendment were accepted, we would have people coming in from some other part of the country for the summer months.
They would reap all the benefits in opposition to the showmen who pay their taxes in the country. I do not think I could accept the amendment and allow people to come in here from England and other places for a short period and then go around the country to the detriment of the interests of the recognised showmen who are an asset to the country. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
I cannot accept the Minister's reasons. The Minister states that if a person comes back intending to live here, he must be back for 12 months before he can promote, assist in promoting or provide facilities. A great number of our people have to emigrate, owing to force of circumstances. They do so for the purpose of coming back when they have accumulated sufficient funds to be able to purchase a property in this country. The Minister seems to be concerned that people may come from other portions of the country here. Those persons could not qualify, as the Minister knows, under this section, unless they were Irish citizens. As far as I am aware, an Irish citizen is a person who has been born in the country before 1923.
We are bringing in a new Bill.
I am dealing with the situation obtaining at present. If a person was born after 1923 in the occupied portion of our country, he would not be regarded as an Irish citizen. I think it is unjust that an Irish citizen should be deprived of his rights whilst a person who has been here for only 13 months would qualify under the section.
I should like to support Senator Walsh. It seems to me that under the Constitution, if a person is an Irish citizen, he must have a right to do anything that is not actually unlawful. I think there have been far too many Acts stipulating not being in the country for a certain period. Senator Walsh is probably quite correct when he says it is contrary to the Constitution to say that an Irish citizen has not some rights as a citizen just because he has been out of the State for a certain period.
I should like to support Senators Cox and Walsh on this amendment. I put down other amendments with the same end in view, that the rights of Irish citizens should be protected.
The Betting Act of 1931 contains similar provisions. Six-County showmen are taxed in respect of lorries and motor-cars and they pay the taxes in the Six Counties. Surely the Senator does not suggest that we should facilitate them to come in in competition with our recognised showmen whose lorries and motor-cars are taxed in the Republic? To encourage those people to come in would be detrimental to the interests of Irish showmen. I am advised not to accept the amendment.
Is the Minister prepared to exclude people who were born and bred in the country?
That will be another day's work.
The showmen themselves discussed the matter with me and they have every sympathy with the Senator's point of view. As a matter of fact, a certain Englishman offered one of our showmen £50,000 merely to use his name. I do not think the Senator would be in favour of a man who is not paying any taxes in this country coming in and getting all the benefit out of the tourist season. The man from the Twenty-Six Counties is not allowed to go up and operate in the Six Counties, but some of the Six County men who are Irish citizens come down here at the present time.
Does the Minister suggest that we should do everything they do in the Six Counties?
Could there not be a reciprocal arrangement between the two Governments?
There is none in operation.
Would it not help to remove the Border to a certain extent?
Could anything be done in regard to reciprocal arrangements in regard to the showmen? Such an arrangement would deserve to be encouraged. I think showmen are a class who are inclined to die out. Ireland is too small to have Six County men restricted from coming here. Perhaps the Minister might examine the matter.
Will the Minister consider the people I mentioned, on Report Stage?
The man who is trying to establish after 12 months—the Irish citizen? I certainly will have sympathy with that. That is what the Senator has in mind?
Those people, principally.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (1), line 28, after "State" to add "provided that a clergyman or minister of religion in charge of a parish or area situated partly in the State and partly outside the State, should for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to have his usual or principal place of residence in the State".
Section 30 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act is being repealed under this Bill and is being re-enacted. Under the ordinary licensing laws, the people who are set out in this section are permitted to be on licensed premises after hours, but, as the law stands at the moment, there are cases such as that of the parish priest of Strabane, which is in the Six Counties, who happens also to be parish priest of Lifford, in the Twenty-Six Counties. As the Bill stands, he, or any of his parishioners in Strabane, would not be permitted to promote a parochial function in which gaming takes place in the portion of the parish inside this State. For that reason, I have put down this amendment that the people mentioned, namely, a clergyman or minister of religion in charge of a parish where the parish is situated on both sides of the Border, should not be debarred from running such a function in the Twenty-Six Counties.
I am in full sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, but I am satisfied that it is not necessary. The Bill as it stands will not interfere with the promotion of gaming at carnivals for the benefit of, say, a charity that clergymen or ministers of religion usually arrange. It is nearly always done by the clergyman's helpers. There may be some doubt as to how particular provisions of the Bill will be uniformly interpreted. It will be necessary to send a comprehensive instruction out to the police, and I shall see that the point made by Senator Walsh will be adverted to in the instructions which I will send to the whole force.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (2), line 46, before "or" to insert "his employees who are in the premises in the ordinary course of their employment, or persons who are resident permanently or temporarily on the premises".
Under Section 9, sub-section (2), the licensee may permit a game of cards to be held in portion of the premises in which intoxicating liquor is not normally sold. The only people who are permitted to play that game under this section would be the licensee or his private friends. I feel that that would exclude other people who are entitled to be on licensed premises after hours, namely those in the employment of the licensee who are there in the ordinary course of their employment, the family of the licensee, and lodgers or guests in an hotel. A guest in an hotel may not be a private friend of the licensee, but still he is entitled to be on those premises at any time of day or night, and, as this section is reenacting Section 30 of the Licensing Act of 1943, I feel that those people should be allowed to be included as able to play cards.
I may be somewhat out of order in saying this, but this sub-section has suggested to my mind a query as to whether provision is made in the Bill to make it lawful, let us say, to play cards for stakes in premises other than licensed premises. I am not quite relevant in raising the point on the section, but, as I read the section and the definition of gaming and look at the exceptions which are made, it seems to me that it is quite possible that there may have been something rather serious overlooked. I am not quite in order in raising that, but I am sure that the Minister will look into it, possibly on the Report Stage.
It would be very unwise to alter the existing law contained in Section 30 of the 1943 Act which we are repeating here and about which we have no complaints whatsoever. There might be very undesirable consequences in altering the position as envisaged in the amendment, and I think we should leave matters as they are at the present time.
The mere fact that there is no complaint simply means that the law is not being enforced. It would be extremely rare to hear of a case where a guest in an hotel was to be prosecuted for playing a game of cards, and I think the House is pretty familiar with the position and with what is common in the country. To take no cognisance of what happens in the country is, in my opinion, a very bad thing. I cannot see why the Minister will not accept the amendment and include those people who can be on the premises at any time and who must from time to time take part in this game of cards.
Under sub-section (3), we are giving permission but the Senator has raised another important point, and I will have it looked into, to see if we can do anything about it on the Report Stage.
The Minister will see that under sub-section (3) you can have only one stake in the night.
We are giving permission they never had before.
I will look into the other point.
I will raise the matter on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (2), lines 49 and 50, to delete "if the friends are being entertained by him at his own expense".
On the Second Reading of this measure, some of us mentioned that many of its provisions would be found to be unenforceable. The foremost amongst these is the section we are now discussing. Not alone will this section, if enacted in its present form, be unenforceable, but, in my opinion, it will make the whole measure ridiculous. It is necessary to read the sub-section to understand it and see it in its proper perspective. It reads:—
"This section shall not prohibit the licensee or his private friends from playing cards for stakes in a part of the premises other than that in which the sale of intoxicating liquor generally takes place if the friends are being entertained by him at his own expense."
In other words, it appears to me that the only way in which people in rural parts of Ireland can indulge in the favourite pastime of having a game of cards in a room off licensed premises is for the proprietor to put up the stakes himself and those who participate in the game—those who are called "friends" in the section—would not be permitted to put down any stakes. I am totally opposed to this section, as it would cut at the root of social life in rural Ireland, as we know it. It is because I understand what takes place in rural Ireland that I ask the Minister to reconsider this section, and especially the sub-section to which I am referring now.
The Minister may say that already playing a game of cards on licensed premises is unlawful. He must admit that that part of the law is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Why continue that pretence? Would it not be better to make sure, when we are passing this measure here, that we are doing something that can be enforced? I ask the Minister to consider this very carefully.
It seems to me that, under the Bill as it stands, I am now committing an offence if I play a game of chess with a friend for a shilling in an hotel. I do not know whether that is intended, but apparently we are gaming—because gaming includes a game of skill—and we are playing for money on licensed premises.
I appeal to the Minister not to press this. If my sizing up of this section is correct, the licensee of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall not permit gaming on the premises. That is sub-section (1), as stated by Senator Kissane. Sub-section (2) says that the "friends" must be entertained at the publican's expense. From my experience, I think you would get very few publicans in Ireland to entertain you at their own expense at this time of the year.
I do not mind admitting that at this time of the year, down in the part of the country to which I belong, there are very few licensed premises where turkey drives do not take place. Many who cannot afford to pay for a turkey would like to have a go for 2/6 in a licensed premises. I would hate to think that if this section is enforced, if I am playing in a licensed premises for a turkey, I am going to incur the displeasure of the law. I do not see any sense in that. As Senator Kissane says, the present law is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. If this is enacted, I cannot see it being enforced in many parts of the country I know of. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider it.
It is a good thing for Senator O'Gorman that this Bill will not come into force before Christmas. My opinion is that it would be a good thing if this particular section did not come into force at all. This sub-section allows the licensed holder to permit his private friends to play games on his premises. As a sub-section, that would be very difficult to enforce. It would be very hard for him to convince the court that certain people were his private friends.
The definition is very peculiar. Apparently the private friends are the people who go in on licensed premises, play cards there, utilise the publican's accommodation, his lighting and heating provisions and "guzzle" his liquor, all at the publican's expense. The public enemies of the publican, apparently, are the poor fellows who remain down in the bar and pay for each drink as they get it. It would be foolish to put such an absurd section as this into the Bill. No one will recognise it and I do not think they should be expected to do so.
The people who enjoy the publican's hospitality, in so far as he provides them with a warm and comfortable room in which to play a game of cards and provides them with lighting and heating, should at least pay for their drinks. There is a saying in the country that if you go into a public-house and accept a drink from the publican, without buying a drink afterwards or in the course of your stay there, you are "taking a slate off the publican's house". This sub-section appears to encourage the complete unroofing of the publican's house, because the only way you can comply with the law, while playing the game of cards, is by making the publican pay for all the drinks. I think that is foolish.
There is nothing radically wrong with people who buy a drink or two in a public-house and enjoy a game of cards. As a matter of fact, it would be a good thing, as people would probably drink less if their minds were occupied by a game of cards during the short period they were there. The section itself is unnecessary and this sub-section is completely unworkable.
I think we will have to leave the law as it stands. It would be undesirable to allow people to play cards in public-houses, because everybody would be the publican's "friend". In the country, everyone who goes in is a friend of the publican—otherwise, he would go into the public-house next door. There would be such a wide interpretation of it that anyone could play cards there. Not alone would the "friends" take the roof off the publican's house, as Senator Cogan said, but they would take the shirt off every innocent fellow in the country—and that is the point we must try to safeguard. The people who administer the law in this country have sufficient sense not to try to stop people playing a half-crown game of cards for a turkey, and I do not think it is necessary to have an Act to give them sanction for doing so.
The only possible case that could be made for this section is, if the Minister could indicate to the House that there is wholesale and serious gambling in public-houses generally. The fact that there may be a few isolated cases does not justify a section like this and only makes lawbreakers out of all the people who go into public-houses. The majority of our public-houses are owned by decent men, men who make a decent living and, besides that, it would be a very bad thing for the Revenue authorities if we had no public-houses in this country.
There is another aspect of this. Suppose a few commercial travellers meet in Cork, or Sligo, or Lifford, or Glenties and, staying in an hotel, decide to have a game of cards, with or without the authority of the proprietor, is it intended to make that sort of thing illegal? The fact that there may be abuses does not justify putting in a section like this. Surely there is enough power under the licensing laws to enable the police to deal with any isolated cases of abuse that may exist. I do not think this section should be passed at all.
We talk a lot in this country about the tourist trade. Unfortunately our climate is not always suitable. As I read the section, it seems to me that if tourists sit down to play a game of bridge for sixpence a hundred in a public-house, they will be breaking the law. That seems to me a ridiculous position to contemplate.
I find myself in agreement with Senator Cogan. I think this section is quite ridiculous. I could never, for instance, understand why it was that we insisted on enshrining in our licensing laws provisions that originated in Great Britain. In most other countries in Europe, it is permissible to play cards on premises, cafés, bars, and so on, in which intoxicating liquor is served. It has often been said, and quite rightly, that the ordinary public-house, or licensed premises, is the club of the average man in this country. I agree with Senator Cogan that there is no reason at all why people should not be permitted to indulge in the social amenity of playing cards on licensed premises. So far as Senator Burke is concerned, may I tell him that I have many a time played cards on licensed premises and never lost my shirt, or anything else.
I merely restate what is in the 1943 Licensing Act. This is a Bill designed, as far as possible, to prevent gaming. It is not designed to encourage gaming. Senator O'Gorman spoke about the half-crown game of cards for a turkey in a rural public-house. The Act which prevents that has been in operation since 1872. I am not going to enshrine in the Act permission for card playing in public-houses which would attract professional and expert sharks from the city who would join in games with men from rural areas who might have taken too much liquor. The game would then become, not the innocent game of cards that Senator Crosbie talked about, but gaming of the very worst type.
If Senators would look at it from that angle they would see that it would be better to remain as we are at present and not encourage gaming in public-houses. If we want to do that, it would be better to change the licensing laws. The licensing laws have been in operation for a long time and we have not heard of dreadful things happening, like men being prosecuted for playing cards for a turkey. There have been exaggerations on one side and I could exaggerate the picture about what I think would happen if profesional sharks were to engage in such games. We all know the difficulties stewards have at rural whist drives where prizes are in the vicinity of £50. The experts come along from outside and the stewards have to watch the various tables to see that these boys will not be able to secure the prizes they came down for.
We are not here concerned with professional sharks who may go down the country from time to time for the purpose of fleecing the innocent people there, but I should remind the Minister that these professional sharks could travel in any case to halls and places where these games are being conducted and where there is no question of gaming taking place on a licensed premises. I want to emphasise that the enactment of this section in its present form will seriously interfere with the social life of the community. In the winter time, the people living in rural Ireland have no other enjoyment than to meet at licensed premises for a game of cards —a "rubber", as they call it—sometimes for 6d. or 1/- a rubber, and have a few drinks at the same time. That is how they pass their winter nights. I hold that the people living in rural Ireland are as much entitled to their enjoyment as the people living in the cities who can go to the theatres, opera and such entertainments.
I wonder do the people of the country realise what we are doing here this evening? I do not think they do. If the people living in rural Ireland were to realise what we are doing here this evening, in putting a section into an Act depriving them of long-established rights they had, in spite of the licensing laws, to have a game of cards at night in a room off a licensed premises, they would be up in arms against us. I ask the Minister to reconsider this section.
May I also appeal to the Minister to reconsider this section? It seems to me that the issues involved are really rather far-reaching. They go a good deal further than the mere section itself. We have had previous occasions over the past 30 years when the public were lightly tampered with by the Legislature, without full consideration of the consequences. Acts have been passed in the Oireachtas rather lightly and without very full consideration, and in the end they have very far-reaching consequences and have exposed the individual in the country to a good deal of interference with his freedom. In some cases, they have almost held us up to ridicule abroad as being ultra-puritanical. I suggest this is a very far-reaching section.
We are not dealing with the section at the moment. We are dealing with amendment No. 19.
I am sorry, but I thought I was dealing with the same subject as the previous speaker. I said nothing so far that was not said by a previous speaker. It seems to me that this section might hold us up to ridicule abroad in the eyes of tourists as being an ultra-puritanical country whose citizens could not be trusted to relax in the way that people normally do in other countries. I can quite see the reason for prohibiting such games as roulette and games of chance in licensed premises, but to say that two people in a room at 10 o'clock playing a game of chess are breaking the law, with the danger of the publican's licence being endorsed, seems to me to be going rather far. It is the sort of thing we should not do without full consideration of all the consequences.
With regard to sharks, one would think that the sharks only existed in licensed premises and that a person who is perfectly right elsewhere becomes a shark when he enters a licensed premises. If the community is to be protected against sharks, a great deal more will have to be done than preventing games of chess on licensed premises. A person who is a shark in a licensed premises does not become a harmless minnow elsewhere. If we allow this to pass without full consideration, we will do something which may expose the country to ridicule abroad. It is a far-reaching interference with the right of the public and the holders of publicans' licences. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter.
I want to add my voice also to the objections raised to this section. I listened very carefully to the case made by the Minister for the insertion of the section. As far as I could gather, the only reason he could advance was the fact that similar provisions obtain in regard to licensed premises. I can see no justification for the retention of provisions of this kind in new legislation. The Minister ought to consider the matter very carefully.
Is there anything new in this section?
If there is not, why refer to it at all? Why have it in the Bill?
If the Minister was in a position to give proof of there being a glaring abuse, well and good, but he did not do that. Instead, he referred to a species of fish—a shark. There is no use in the Minister frightening people down the country with talk about sharks.
How could a shark come from Dublin?
They could swim down the Shannon or the canal. There is no use trying to frighten us in regard to sharks coming to local public-houses and skinning us.
I do not play cards myself. I have enough of other vices.
Imagine a Dublin man making money in a country public-house!
The only other point was that there is already provision in the licensing Acts. That makes the matter much worse—passing legislation that cannot be enforced at all. That is the most ridiculous thing that could be suggested. If it is ever to be enforced, it could be enforced now and again and oftentimes decent people would be open to persecution and prosecution. There is a duty on this House to protect the people from that sort of thing. I certainly cannot agree with the section.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
I do not know whether or not the Senator intends to press this amendment. As I see it, this amendment touches a small portion of the section, but it would, I think, if carried, ensure that at least one source of abuse would be removed. I think it would be entirely wrong to have a situation in which a sort of class distinction, if you like, would be introduced. A few ordinary workingmen or farmers playing cards in the public bar—a place where drink is sold— would be prohibited; but a select few would, apparently, be permitted, under this sub-section, to play cards in the residential portion of the licensed premises, or, as others have pointed out, in the portions of an hotel which are not ordinarily used for the sale of drink.
There is also the danger that, as has been pointed out, people found playing cards other than on the portion of the licensed premises where drink is sold could be charged with violating the law on the ground that, legally, they were consuming drink being supplied to them by the publican. It would be difficult to produce conclusive evidence in order, in the first place, to sustain a prosecution and, secondly, to prove innocence. There is no documentary evidence of sales in a public-house and a publican could sell drink to people playing cards, perhaps in places on his licensed premises not ordinarily used for the consumption of drink, and it would be very hard to prove. Therefore, we would have a lot of evasion of the law and perhaps violation of the whole spirit of the law.
The playing of a game of cards is an innocent form of amusement that is indulged in possibly in every country and private house throughout the State. The case made by the Minister is that certain professional sharks would avail of the freedom given to play cards in licensed premises to "rook" people who, perhaps, might be under the influence of drink. I do not think there is any substance in that. If people want to cheat in those games, they can do it anywhere there is a public game. Most adult people are well able to take care of themselves. The idea of sharks coming to Baltinglass, Tullow or Hacketstown, or places I know, and "rooking" the local people is a little absurd. It is the shark who would go back without his hide. I think there is no purpose in the section. If the Minister would consider on the Report Stage legalising an innocent game of cards in a public-house, I do not see what harm could be done. So far as this amendment is concerned, it seeks to ensure that something should be deleted from the section which could not reasonably be enforced.
I do not know if the Minister has changed his mind in connection with this amendment. I would like to inform the Seanad that I would not have put it down, were I not aware of the fact that we are now, by positive action, doing something that could gravely interfere with the social life of the people, especially in rural Ireland. All of us who come from the country realise that meeting in a country village, or in a house in a provincial town, is a very usual practice, for the purpose of having a harmless game of cards, and, were it not for that pastime the people of the country have, I do not know what they would turn their minds to.
The Minister has mentioned the Licensing Act of 1872. In other words, he is going back almost a century to provide some justification, and a hazy justification it is, for this section that I seek to amend. The people of the country have only a hazy knowledge of the 1872 Act, and, as I have said, it has been honoured all down through the years more in the breach than in the observance. We have now come to the point that the people hardly realise that such an Act is there at all.
The conditions that obtained almost a century ago in the country are not the conditions that obtain to-day. We are living in a different age. We live in an age when people want to have some sort of social life, and the only way the people of the country can have social life is by meeting now and then legitimately, within the legitimate hours, in a licensed premises to have a game of cards for which they put down stakes. I want Senators to bear in mind, and I want the country to bear in mind, that if this Bill is passed in its present form, and if this amendment of mine is not accepted, we are taking positive steps to deprive the people of the country of the right to forgather in a private room in a licensed premises for a game of cards. If that is not totalitarian legislation, I do not know what it is.
There are just two points I would like to make in reference to this amendment. One of them has already been made by the Minister, that this section of the Bill introduces nothing new. The second point I want to make is that the reason for the former position under the licensing code was to prevent publicans, as such, running entertainments, such as games of cards, to entice people into public-houses. I am surprised to hear Senator Kissane say that that was the only social life in the country towns and that, because of that, we should give every encouragement to our young people and our old people to forgather in public-houses, to entice them in by allowing games of cards to be played, entice them into what some people would imagine would be an occasion for people to take strong liquor.
I have no objection to people taking strong liquor, but I think it is against social conscience that we should entice them by these amusements. If a person wants to drink, the public-houses are open during the licensed hours, and sometimes after it. I think Senator Kissane is overstating the case when he implies that the Minister is putting a very rigorous and a very penal clause in the Bill. I want to emphasise that the former position is really being carried on and that to delete the section in the Bill does not meet the issue at all.
I do not think the Senator is really in earnest in suggesting that we should allow gambling in public-houses. It is all very well to say it is a quite harmless social amusement. It can be, I suppose, quite harmless, but the Senator will accept that it could provide a dangerous occasion in many country towns. I suggest that he should not pursue this matter further.
I am singularly unqualified in the matter of public-houses and in the matter of gaming. My acquaintance with public-houses is outside Dublin and is almost entirely confined to the Irish language.
Perhaps I am not well able to read this Bill. I agree that all this section is already in existing legislation, but, if amendment No. 19 were accepted, would it make any difference to the working of the Bill? Sub-section (2) says that this section shall not prohibit the licensee or his private friends from playing cards for stakes in part of the premises other than that in which the sale of intoxicating liquor takes place. I wonder would it be any different if it stopped there, or went on to include the words "if the friends are being entertained by him at his own expense". I doubt very much that it would, in practice, make any difference. I suggest that the Minister might reconsider that point of view.
Perhaps people, in arguing for an amendment of this kind, sometimes go a little too far, but, if the Minister were to reconsider it, we will have a Report Stage on this Bill after Christmas, and Senators will be aware in time whether the Minister is putting down an amendment of his own, and, on the next stage, we can reconsider this matter in the light of the discussion that has taken place this evening from all sides of the House.
As this debate has gone on, one becomes more and more confused as to what really the effect of Section 9 is to be. Apparently it applies to all licensed premises, and that means it applies to hotels, to a club which has a licence, and to any place which has a licence. Having reached that point, it forbids any gaming on those premises, and gaming is defined as anything, whether it is pure skill or chance, or partly skill and partly chance, which is played for a stake; so that solemnly this section as it stands, as I have said previously, forbids one playing chess for a stake, forbids one playing any ordinary card game of skill in a club, forbids one playing a card game of skill in an hotel, forbids the tourists who come here to play a game of bridge in their hotel. And the answer given, when that is pointed out, is that this has always been the law. I am not at all sure that it has been the law always, though I agree that there is a similar provision in the licensing law, but I think that that has been applied as regards licensed premises that would be called public-houses.
It seems to me that there is another side of this. Like Senator Hayes, I do not know much about public-houses, but I have observed in the course of my few travels abroad that, in England, the public-house does seem to be a much more pleasant sort of place than the public-house here, and that very largely seems to be because it is used as a sort of club and people play games — darts and such games. I have never taken a drink, but I have been in public-houses in London and elsewhere in the evening, and I must say that they present a picture which is quite different from anything one associates with an Irish public-house, and that is entirely due to the fact that games are allowed there. It seems to me that there is a great deal in this section which requires further thought. I cannot suggest a few words that will make everything right, and I think the Minister should consider this much more closely than has been done.
First of all, I should like to refer to Senator Murphy's interpretation of what I said. I think he interpreted my words to mean that the people of the country had no other pastime but going into public-houses. I did not want to convey any such thing. What I wanted to convey is that it is a common practice among people in the country to meet socially, and if they want to meet socially, where there is not a parish hall, the only place they can meet is in a public-house, if they want to have a game of cards. It is usual also for those people to have a few drinks in the course of their game, but, if this amendment is not accepted, they will not be able to pay for their few drinks and it would be the proprietor who would have to pay for the whole lot. He cannot be expected to do it. If these people will not be able to indulge in a game of cards, they will be tempted, in that case, to bend their steps towards the bar and drink more than they would have, if they went for the game, so that the alleged evil we seek to remove will be intensified and made worse.
There are also, of course, as Senator Cox has mentioned, other games that can be played, and are played, in licensed premises — games of darts and rings — and it appears to me that they would also be outlawed under this section.
Of course, they do play for stakes, and some will not play at all if they do not have little stakes because they can have an added interest in the game.
Yes, and do you not know that the winner then has to stand a round of drinks?
That may or may not be the practice, but in any case the money passes, and when money passes, when there is a charge, then it comes under this section. However, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and, as Senator Hayes has said, perhaps he may find between this and the Report Stage that there is a lot of common sense in what we have been saying here this evening.
The position is that at the present time it is illegal, as some of the legal gentlemen know, to play cards in licensed premises. We are giving permission under this section to play. Senator Kissane speaks about the harmless game. If he reads sub-section (3), harmless games such as a game of bridge are permitted. However, to meet the Senator's wishes, and as I think it is the desire of everybody to have a good gaming Bill which would have the approval of the public, not of any individual, I undertake to consider the matter carefully for the Report Stage and to submit my decision to the Senators who have spoken to enable them to put in any amendment they may require on the Report Stage. But I am giving no guarantee that I am accepting the amendment in any way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
We have given notice of our intention to oppose this section, but, in view of what the Minister has now said, we will withdraw our opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (1), line 12, to add "except for a period beginning on May 1st and extending to September 30th, at seaside resorts, and where the stake does not exceed 1d. and where the number of machines does not exceed 15".
The amendment proposes that the playing of slot-machines at a seaside resort will be legal, within limits. This section of the Bill makes all slot machines illegal. I agree that some amount of control of these machines and the playing of them was necessary, but I think that the section goes too far. The amendment would enable amusement caterers to have slot-machines of a gaming type available during the tourist season at seaside resorts for a very limited stake. We in this country pay a great deal of attention to our tourist trade. We are constantly trying to find ways and means of making tourists interested in coming to our seaside resorts. Nobody in the House can deny that slot-machines are a popular form of entertainment. If they were not a popular form of entertainment, there would be no need to mention them in the Bill as being banned.
The major complaint I have always heard was that they were unfair and that the person who played had not a fair chance of winning. The Minister made that one of his reasons for limiting the stake at "pongo" and other games and he said that that type of gaming did not give a person a fair chance and he wished to discourage it. Slot-machines must be a very fair form of gambling, because so many play them, but I believe it is necessary to control them. The amusement people maintain that the slot-machines are the shop window of the arcade and, without them, they would not get customers to come in and use the other games.
There was a lot of talk about "pongo" and the 10/- limit, and the Minister seemed to think that, if the stake were limited to 6d., one would have a considerable length of interest in the play. I am assured you can lose 6d. in two and a half minutes at "pongo", but if you play 6d. in a penny slot-machine, you will have 30 to 50 minutes playing, depending on the luck you have.
If we ban the slot-machines from the ordinary people, I would ask the Minister to consider making them available to tourists at seaside resorts. The main argument against the use of these machines in towns was that people played with their husbands' wages, or men played with their own wages; but, at seaside resorts, people are spending not their normal housekeeping money but money saved up for a holiday and they should be entitled to spend it in what way they think best. If they think the slot-machine is the best way in which to spend the holiday money which they have saved up, I do not think we have any right to stop them. People who run amusements in Tramore and Bray tell me that the slot-machine is very popular, that many people come to Ireland to have a flutter and that their idea of a flutter is to play the slots. It seems to me that having lost 6d. in two and a half minutes on a legal game of "pongo", one should not be told one cannot lose a penny on a slot-machine. I do not see any sense in banning them completely and I would ask the Minister to consider favourably the amendment I have suggested.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I take it the Senator is also discussing amendment No. 39 on this.
I support Senator Bergin's case for this exemption. When the stake was 6d., it constituted a danger that an excessive amount might be lost, particularly as the slot-machines were in practically every town and were used regardless of the season of the year. They were then a strong temptation to indulgence in gambling. Where they are in seaside resorts and when the stake is only 1d., there is not much danger of abuse and they would be an attraction in those places. Our peculiar climate does not always favour holiday-makers and some seaside places can be very dull. Those who have saved money for a holiday may find the time hanging heavily on their hands and may like to spend a few hours at this pastime, which would augment the other attractions.
I support this amendment. The slot-machines are a form of gambling, but a mild and popular form, and it would be strange if visitors to places like Tramore could not indulge in that amusement, in a country which has betting shops at every corner.
If a case is made for slot-machines, surely the percentage limitation suggested for "pongo" would be even more necessary in this case? Tourists would be attracted then by the feeling that they would get good value for the penny put in. As a young lad, I used to play the slot-machines and always felt I got very bad value. I am sure the percentage profit is enormous. There should be a limit on the profit which could be made by the owner. I understand the machines can be set for that purpose and, if they are allowed here, they should be inspected by the weights and measures inspectors, to see that people get a fair run for their money. I myself would abhor that form of amusement.
Sub-section (3) says:—
"This section does not apply to a machine which is designed for amusement only and, when successfully operated, delivers no more than the amount of the stake and bears a notice explaining that it is of that kind."
It seems from that that the slot machines are not being eliminated altogether.
I wonder what a "seaside resort" is under this amendment. As the tide comes in to Dublin, could Dublin not be one? In the poorer sections of the city, you have, in every huckster's shop, one of those "one-armed gangsters", as they have been called. I never noticed any tourists coming in there to amuse themselves, but I did notice the kids of the neighbourhood putting in a few pennies and pulling the handle each time they came on a message for their parents — and I never saw any of them win anything.
If we are in earnest about overcoming these evils, the provision in sub-section (3) is quite sufficient. They are of no encouragement to tourists and I am strongly in favour of their elimination. There is ample provision in the sub-section and the Seanad should not go any further.
Senator Murphy is quite right when he points out that slot-machines are not prohibited under the Bill. They are prohibited, only if they give a cash return. If they give prizes such as cigarettes or a small box of chocolates, they are allowed under the Bill. It is where they give the cash return which is more than the stake, or where there is the promise of such cash return, that they are prohibited.
I want to point out that opinion of all sections of the community was against cash slot-machines and this Government were united in the view that so long as they are responsible for the affairs of the State in any part of the country coming under their jurisdiction, they will not allow cash slot-machines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) This section does not apply to a licensed arcade, amusement hall or funfair where the ratio of slot-machines to gaming instruments is not greater than one to four and where the stake used to operate machines is not more than one penny.
The amendment proposes to allow the use of such slot-machines at funfairs and arcades. The use of machines in those circumstances would not be harmful to anybody. Some speakers were inclined to think that these machines should be rubbed out. I think, as Senator Bergin has stated, that there should be some means evolved to allow the slot-machines to continue in some form or other. I think that some provision could be made for a limited number of these slot-machines at places such as funfairs and arcades, and it would not be harmful to anybody, but would be a source of attraction to the people who ordinarily go to these places, particularly at seaside resorts. I should like the Minister to consider allowing them in some form of ratio, say a ratio of four to one. In other words, if there were five gaming tables one of them could be a slot-machine.
The Minister has, of course, stated that the Government is not prepared to tolerate these machines, if they are to be used for cash purposes, but would be prepared to tolerate them for prizes in kind. Might I ask the Minister to permit these slot-machines to be used at funfairs and arcades and seaside resorts for the purposes of prizes in kind or if it is possible that that point could be got round by permitting prizes in the form of discs or chits? This is the point I want to get at. The Minister says you cannot have cash prizes, but does that mean that you can have any other sort of prize? I think we should have some arrangement by which the player would get a disc for which he would receive a prize on presentation of the disc at the counter and I put forward the suggestion because I believe it would be a desirable addition to the Bill.
I have already explained on Senator Bergin's amendment that the Government will not tolerate these slot-machines used for cash prizes. If there was a provision for discs or chits, they could be changed for cash. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the use of slot-machines which give prizes in kind. It is the unanimous decision of the Government to prohibit other uses of these machines, as they have been prohibited in other countries. These machines have given considerable trouble in the past and various decisions have been given from time to time by district justices in connection with them. The chit or disc would be just an easy way of getting round the Act and giving a cash return. We will not allow their use for that purpose.
How is it proposed to make sure that the operator of the slot-machines will get the prizes indicated? Is there any means by which that can be done? If I get a disc from a machine, when I go to the counter, I am supposed to get, for instance, a set of china, but I could get a £5 note instead.
I do not think you would get any such prize.
Slot-machines are allowed, provided they do not return more than the stake.
The amendment is more or less on the lines of that proposed by Senator Bergin, and I suggest that the use of slot-machines could be allowed to a limited extent to supplement other amusements in funfairs and arcades. I do not think, from reading the section, that it gives the Minister the powers he suggests; that is, the power to allow the use of slot-machines for the return of prizes in kind. So far as I can see, these machines are to be allowed for amusement only and the successful operator can get no more than the amount of his stake. I do not think, in those circumstances, it could be regarded as an attraction in any way. At least everybody who places a stake likes to get a small benefit, if successful. I think if the Minister would accept this amendment, with safeguards, he would be doing a useful service.
I can see objections to the use of slot-machines to any great extent by children and regulations might be made to prevent that. I would not be in favour of children being permitted to take part to any extent in gaming on slot-machines. There should be some safeguards, but, at the same time, I do not think it right to rule these machines out altogether. I think some amendment should be made to this section to provide that the prizes in kind would be something more than the amount of the stake. It could be a limited figure but it should provide some inducement.
I think that experience has shown that these machines ought to be restricted, for the person operating them has got only a 100 to 1 chance of getting any return. I remember on one occasion working one of these machines and putting in 48 pennies without any result. The only benefit these machines might have would be to develop the biceps in the pulling of the lever. I agree they are only there for the purpose of racketeering on an innocent public and I agree they should be abolished.
I support this amendment. I cannot see that slot-machines are such a terrible danger that they should be abolished altogether. Under sub-section (3) of Section 10, we allow people to play these machines for prizes in kind. Every penny goes back to the person who owns the machines. He has all the profit but the person who plays the machine has no chance whatever.
These slot-machines are popular. There is no doubt about that. Senator O'Gorman was tempted one time and actually spent 4/-. If he spent 4/-, he must have played the machine for an hour. The people who visit our amusement centres like our slot-machines and we should try to meet them as far as we can without hurting our own people. The people who go on holidays go to spend the money they have saved up. It is only in respect of the tourist resorts that we want this permission. At the present time, if anybody goes to Tramore, Bundoran, or Bray, he will see that there is not a single slot-machine in operation. The tourist likes to play the slot-machines. I think we should allow people to spend their money in the way they enjoy best.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I refuse to accept the amendment.
In view of the Minister's attitude, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
At column 698, Volume 45, No. 8, of the Official Debates of the 23rd November, 1955, the Minister stated:—
"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."
The District Court is the licensing authority, and as the local authority will be a noticing party in all applications to the District Court for certificates for licences, as in the case of dance-hall licences, it could decide when and when not a certificate should be issued by the court. The court will take into consideration their objections. Once this part of the Bill is adopted by the local authority, it appears to be completely unnecessary to go through the expensive and cumbersome procedure set out in Sections 12 and 13, which necessitates at least two advertisements in each of two papers and the calling, possibly, of a special meeting of the local authority.
The District Court will be the body which will decide ultimately whether or not the certificate to enable a licence to be issued will be granted. The District Court, therefore, will hear the representations which have to be made to the local authority. I feel it is unnecessary to include Sections 12 and 13 of the Bill. While I, as a solicitor, may earn a certain amount of money by the procedure which is set out in the Bill, I feel the procedure is unnecessary and that it is the District Court which is the proper body to deal with this matter.
At a time when we have appeals from all over the country to give greater powers to public representatives, surely now is the time when these public representatives should have a right to say that they object. As I explained on the Second Reading, music is being played until 1 o'clock in the morning at seaside places to the annoyance of a number of visitors. I explained before that I received letters of complaints in this connection. Deputies put questions down in the House in connection with the objections raised by traders in Talbot Street where loud music interferes with the traders from early morning until very late at night. All the public bodies need do is to agree to allow amusements into an area and certify they have a right to go before the district-justice. I think no citizen will object to giving a right to a public body and then appeal to the district justice. Once the public body decides by resolution, it cannot rescind it, and the amusement caterer can get his rights from the district justice.
There is opposition from traders in Talbot Street. I have received letters. I have personal knowledge of the situation in some seaside places where people going for a rest after illness complain about juke boxes and loudspeakers going on until midnight and 1 o'clock in the morning. The public bodies have no remedy and we have no remedy. Now the public bodies can say they object to any noise or music after 12 o'clock. We are giving that right to the public bodies. I am sure that the Senator, on reflection, will agree it is right that public representatives should have a say in deciding where amusements should be held. One would not like to have amusements in Glendalough, for instance, and the public body would have the right to say that they will not allow amusement caterers to go into Glendalough. The district justice will take notice of the fact that the public authority has made that objection and will stipulate that amusements will not be allowed there. I cannot accept the amendment.
The whole point is that the local authorities either adopt or do not adopt the sections. If they do adopt the sections, then at least they have control. It is a matter then for the District Court to grant or not to grant the certificate. The representation which the local authority will make to the court will be taken into consideration. If the local authority suggest that they should stop at 12 o'clock, and so forth, the Minister has already indicated that the court will take cognisance of that representation. Even if Sections 12 and 13 were deleted, notice must be given to the local authority 28 days before the application is made. The local authority can then decide whether they should object to the application, or whether they should suggest to the court that the court should impose certain restrictions on the granting of the certificate.
The sections which I suggest should be deleted simply give the local authority the power either to adopt or not to adopt the Act. If the sections are not adopted by the local authority, then the matter cannot come before the District Court at all. In the case of a large county such as Donegal, while a county councillor in Ballyshannon may feel that the licence should be granted, a county councillor in Moville — which is 80 or 90 miles away — may feel that it should not be granted. However, you must take the decision at a meeting of the local authority.
I should like to support a point made by Senator Walsh in regard to a large county. The Minister makes the case that the local representatives should have a say in this matter as to whether or not an amusement hall should be opened. In the operation of this section, however, it may be that the representatives of a district affected by this particular amusement may desire to have it in their district, but the majority of the council, who are not perhaps interested in it at all, may decide against it, and thus the wishes of the local representatives would be frustrated.
It would be different, of course, in the case of an urban area or a county borough, but, in regard to a county council of a large county, this could operate very unfairly as far as the district concerned would be affected.
I should also like to ask the Minister, in connection with this section, whether the section, if passed, and assuming that the county council of a county decides not to bring it into operation, means that no travelling amusement caterers can enter that county. If it does, it seems a very serious restriction. Very often, there are amusement caterers — even apart from carnivals or anything else that is locally organised — who operate and travel from one county to another. Would they be prohibited from entering a county which had declined or refused to bring this part of the Act into operation?
Take, as Senator Walsh suggested, a large county such as Donegal, or any county you care to mention. A licence may be granted and there may be restriction in relation to certain areas. Some persons may feel aggrieved and, in fact, it is quite possible that a county council might have a grievance against a certain area. They might not just like the county councillor from that area and say: "We will not include that area." That is possible. In my view, when granting the permission, they ought to give the reasons why they are granting the permission. If people feel aggrieved, I think they ought to be entitled to bring the matter before the district justice, but only in a case where an Order is granted. If the local authority decide they will not grant any licence, I think the aggrieved person should not be entitled to bring the matter before the district justice. Where, however, they grant a licence with a restriction, I feel that anyone who feels aggrieved ought to be entitled to bring the matter before the district justice.
I quite agree that, in a place such as Glendalough, it would destroy the whole tradition of the district to set up amusements and, in my opinion, that would be a reasonable ground for the granting of a limited licence to a county such as Wicklow. That is the only difficulty I can see. There is a very great safeguard. The following season the local authority can always withdraw the licence for the whole area, if they feel that any abuse has taken place of the privilege which they are entitled to grant.
I find it difficult to understand why the principle of local option is introduced merely for this particular part of this Bill, or for this Bill alone. It seems to me that the idea is rather objectionable. Quite apart from that, however, assuming that the local authority does vote in favour of such licences, I think it will be a very difficult matter for the district justice to refuse applications because he will be faced, straight off, with the general approval by the local authority. The result might easily be that in a particular area far more licences would be granted by the court than would be desirable. In my view, this joint business of approval by the local authority and then application to the court will raise quite a series of difficulties and strange reactions.
I just want to make a suggestion about the difficulties mentioned by Senators in relation to large counties. I suggest the difficulty could easily be surmounted by leaving the matter, instead of to the county, to the electoral area concerned. In County Roscommon, matters that concern the various electoral areas are very often left to the members of the respective electoral areas to decide. In my view, the objections expressed by Senators in regard to a large county could be simplified if electoral areas were substituted, instead of the whole county.
The local authority, say, for Donegal can adopt it for Ballyshannon and decide that if the people of Bundoran make a petition to the local authority not to allow the funfairs in Bundoran——
Bundoran would be an urban area.
Senator Cogan mentioned travelling shows. This does not affect travelling shows at all — only amusement halls and funfairs. Our original intention was to have it only for tourist resorts. The question then arose of a definition of "tourist resorts": we had to go back to the original position. Take, for instance, Dublin Corporation. They know the wishes of the people of the city and — representing, as they do, the people of the city — naturally they are entitled to decide, and they do decide, whether or not they will allow an amusement hall in a particular place. The least we may do is to give the local authority —we have been appealing a lot on behalf of local authorities — the right to interpret the wishes of the people in the area and to say what the people desire. I know that many of the public bodies put in advertisements to try to get amusements into their area during the summer time. If they are interested in tourism, they do everything they possibly can to attract visitors, and I do not think it is right that we should deny the right to, say, the City of Dublin to decide what they think their people desire. That is all I ask, that we should give the right to public representatives to decide whether a particular amusement should be allowed or not.
Not a particular amusement, but a particular area.
Would the Minister consider the suggestion put forward by Senator Meighan that, instead of each county council deciding for the entire county, the decision be taken by each electoral area separately?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are dealing now with Section 12. I hope the House appreciates that. We are not dealing with Section 13.
I would ask you to take the two sections together.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have been discussing them.
I am prepared to withdraw.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Government amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (5), to delete the words "or, in the case of the commissioners of a town, not being a body corporate, under the hand of any two of their number".
This is only a drafting amendment. Since the Local Government Act, 1955, became law a short time ago, all town commissioners are bodies corporate and the words which the amendment seeks to have struck out are no longer necessary.
This amendment gives me an opportunity of clarifying a point raised on the Second Reading. It was suggested that there was no provision for the adoption of this part of the Bill in a town which had not an urban council. That is not so. The definition of "local authority" in Section 2 includes town commissioners. There are, of course, small towns which have no commissioners, but they are not towns as defined in the Local Government Acts and, under this Bill, it would be for the county council to adopt or not to adopt the provisions in relation to them.
I raised that on the Second Reading, as to what was meant by this definition of a town. The Bill implies a definition under the Local Government Act under which a town is any town with town commissioners. I think under this section the decision taken by the county council should not cover the whole county. I know that there is provision for the exclusion of areas, but I think each electoral area should have the right to decide its own destiny.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I have noticed this only now. A local authority may move such a resolution and it may rescind it. It is provided that evidence of the passing of the resolution may be given in court by the production of a copy of the newspaper containing the notice. I think it should be certified under seal of the council which passes the resolution, and that the court should not be bound to accept a copy of the newspaper, without knowing whether there has been a rescinding of the resolution or not. The procedure provided by the Bill seems to me to be a very slack way of dealing with the matter. After all, this is an important matter and surely the proper procedure would be to say that a certificate under the seal of the local authority would be required. It is, of course, the business of the person making the application to the district justice to give proof of the passing of the resolution, but it seems strange that he should be able to do that by picking up a copy of an old newspaper and producing it to the district justice.
Its purpose is merely to produce evidence for the court against a person who suggests that the public body has not passed the resolution. It is to rebut evidence.
I suggest that the Minister should consider that on the Report Stage, because it does seem a very loose way of doing it. I suggest that evidence should be given in the proper way, that is, under the seal of the local authority.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
The matter dealt with in my amendment No. 23 has already been raised, and I am prepared to accept the Minister's undertaking that he will reconsider this matter on the Report Stage. The same would apply, Sir, to amendment No. 24.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In paragraph (d), line 12, to delete "ten shillings" and substitute "thirty shillings".
I think that the maximum prize of 10/- is too small because, in the operation of some of these games, you have, in certain cases, as many as 100 people playing a game and each giving 6d. as a contribution. In less than ten minutes, that game can be over and, 10/- being the maximum prize, it means that the promoter receives £2 out of that pool of 50/-. I think that is too much and I think I am entitled to suggest to the Minister, with respect, that the prize should be 30/-, in which case the promoter would only take 20/-. If these games are operated with a maximum prize of 10/-, it means that, at the end of 12 or 14 hours' operation, the takings of the operator would be fantastic. Any person who participates in a game of that nature should be protected by us and should be entitled, as one of the participants, to a fair share of what we call "the pool". I think, Sir, that my proposal is reasonable and I ask the Minister to accept it.
I have discussed this with showmen and amusement caterers and they agree that 10/- is sufficient for amusement only.
There are only a few halls in Dublin whose owners are anxious to have a higher prize to induce people to remain longer and spend their money in the hope of getting the larger prize. There is no demand, outside a few owners of halls in Dublin, to increase the prize beyond 10/-. The Senator will agree that to do so would defeat the purpose of the Bill. If we are to try not to make gambling popular and not to give an inducement to people who can ill-afford it to spend their money, in the hope of getting large prizes, we should confine it to 10/-, and you will not then have such an inducement there. It is with the wishes of the genuine amusement caterers that we have included 10/- as the maximum prize.
I respectfully ask why would not the amusement proprietors say: "Keep the prize to 10/-"? They also are participants in the gambling as are the speculators, and they would very naturally expect the prize to be limited to 10/-, because their profits will be greater. I again ask the Minister to reconsider that point, and, at the risk of repeating myself, I must say that I merely want to try to make the game reasonable, make the profits reasonable and make the chances reasonable. The Minister must have had at one time or another a flutter and he must know that, in present circumstances, these people would come and ask him to keep the prize down to 10/-. If it goes to 30/-, you reduce their profit to £1. I will simply go over the thing again: if 100 people play this game, all contributing 6d. each, that produces 50/-. The Minister tells you that you must not receive any prize money more than 10/-, and that gives the promoter a profit of £2. That £2 can be earned by the promoter in a matter of five or ten minutes. A game may last an hour, but you could average it out over a quarter of an hour. That is £8 an hour, 12 hours a day— not bad. I suggest that it should be made 30/-.
Is the amendment being pressed?
The answer to that, I suppose, is that I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In sub-section (1), line 20, after "funfair" to add "where a certificate of suitability of the premises has been issued by the local authority".
I am moving this amendment on behalf of Senator Hawkins. A local authority are a notice party, and one of the reasons they should be is the fact that they will be responsible for the safety of the building in which the funfair may be held. Likewise, a local authority are a notice party in connection with applications for dance-hall licences. It would be desirable that an engineer on behalf of that authority should attend the court and give a certificate as to whether or not the premises are suitable for the function. There may be a danger to public life. There may be certain fire safety precautions that should be taken into consideration. For that reason, if the amendment is not accepted, it means that a funfair may be held on premises which are a danger to life and limb, and not suitable for the public.
Again, we had to consider the wishes of the people in the rural areas. The Senator may be quite right, but a local authority may not wish to exercise their powers as, maybe, some small amusement caterer may want to use for the time being a wooden structure and would be there only for a short time. They may not desire to send an engineer and have an inspection, and for that reason we left in the Bill a right to the local authority to use their discretion at a particular time as to whether it would be necessary to prohibit that particular place from having a funfair or not.
The local authority would be notified at least 28 days before an application is made to the District Court, and therefore would have ample time to ascertain if the building in which it was proposed to carry on the funfair is suitable or not. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask the local authority to produce that certificate to the court, so that the court will be in the position of knowing that there is no danger to the public who are to participate.
The Senator must know that a local authority may not wish to have a meeting at the particular time; therefore, I do not want to compel the local authority, where they so decide, to go into court. I want to give them self-determination, to decide for themselves in the circumstances of a particular case, whether they should go into court or not. The Senator may find that in his own area there may be a structure, and, while it would not comply with all the sections of the local authority, the local authority might find that it would not meet the wishes of the people to deprive the locality of amusement for the time being. Therefore, we have decided not to put anything in the Act to compel the local authority to do something which they may decide themselves not to do.
Might this difficulty not be met by adding in sub-section (4) of Section 15 a power to the court to attach conditions as to the condition of the premises? That would seem to me to be a very natural thing and would bring such premises into line with other public premises.
The local authority will surely give evidence, if, in their opinion, the premises are not suitable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) A caterer who has been operating as such in the same premises for a period of ten years or more shall be granted a certificate by the court on proving that he has complied with the other requirements of the Act.
I want to provide by this amendment that a caterer or operator who has been operating in a premises for a period of ten years or greater shall not be subjected to applying to a court or elsewhere for continuity in the premises. The Minister should consider that old-established premises ought to be covered automatically in this Bill. I am sure the Minister knows that there are a number of these institutions here in Dublin, giving reasonable employment, and it would be unfair, just with a stroke of the pen, just because we are introducing the new measure here, not to afford protection to those people. I do not think that the Minister for one moment entertains the idea of hurting those people, or injuring them in their business, but I should like to see that incorporated in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would give the Seanad an assurance that there is no possibility of men in old-established entertainment rooms, arcades, etc., in the country being injured by the introduction of this Bill.
This amendment is in conflict with other provisions of the Bill, but, in any event, it would be unacceptable to me. What we are being asked to do is to give special rights to those persons who have been operating gaming houses for the past ten years or more, contrary to the law of the land and despite police prosecutions. The prosecutions have been brought regularly before the courts. Is it seriously suggested that such persons should be given preferential treatment, because they have been carrying on illegally for ten years, over citizens who have been complying with the law?
Apart from this objection in principle, there is also the fact that there is no guarantee that a local authority, say, the Dublin Corporation, would approve of the hall where a man has been operating ten and 12 years. They may have good reason for disapproving, or they may have objections from a large number of people. Therefore, I am not going to agree to an amendment that would give one individual the rights which a majority of other individuals do not possess, simply and solely because he has been carrying on illegally for the past ten years.
We are all anxious to uphold the rights of local authorities, but individuals also have rights. If a person has been operating an amusement hall of this kind for a number of years, is it possible that, under this Bill, if a county council fails to bring the Act into operation, that man's business may be closed down without a penny compensation? There appears to be grave injustice there and some provision should be made for it.
Even those who were operating illegally for that period were doing so under Acts which were themselves illegal in the moral sense, inasmuch as they had no moral support in this country and were recognised generally as being obsolete, in the sense that the authorities did not enforce them.
The Minister states that my new sub-section may be conflicting with the Bill and he gives as one of his reasons that there may be one of these caterers who has committed various offences over the years, and, therefore, there may be good reason why he should not get authority to carry on now because he is ten years in business. But it is clearly stated in this proposed sub-section that he "shall be granted a certificate by the court on proving that he has complied with the other requirements of the Act".
Surely to be a decent man and run a proper establishment is one of the requirements. So, when the Minister brushes me aside with the remark that this sub-section may be in conflict with the Bill, I begin to doubt the Bill. This makes it clear that any man who is operating this business for the past ten years should get some consideration, some priority and some guarantee of continuity in the business that he has run decently and cleanly for the past ten years. There is no conflict there. I have not studied the Bill so minutely and perhaps it conflicts with my sub-section. It is practically an insult for the Minister to slip my sub-section aside, with the remark that it conflicts with the Bill.
I do not know these people personally, but I have seen them operating over the years and have seen nothing wrong. I am not one of those who want to see slot-machines in seaside resorts or "honky-tonks", as the Americans call them. When the Minister is introducing a Bill to legalise these people, we should see that they will not be regarded in the terms I have just used. This particular sub-section will give those men who are the pioneers of this business in the city and elsewhere a chance to continue. We should not be so hasty at all in deciding that they are doing a wrong thing in entertaining people in this country. A little entertainment does not do any harm and my sub-section itself possibly does less harm than the Bill.
I cannot agree with Senator Carton. These people knew they were operating illegally and were subject to many prosecutions during the last ten or 20 years. Are we now to give them something as compensation for having broken the law? They should be in jail, instead of getting a preference.
I have not asked for compensation.
No. You want to give them a preference.
You are going to give them something.
They are entitled to the continuation of their business.
You are going to compel the local authority to give them a licence. The local authority has power to refuse or allow people to operate in the area.
It is a case of "live and let live."
They could apply the same as anyone else and I presume they would be allowed to operate, provided they behave themselves.
The Minister said certain people had been prosecuted. I take it, as Senator Carton did, that that might injure their chances in securing a licence.
Having expiated the offence.
If that outlook were to prevail, it would be a very serious thing. It is one thing to be prosecuted on a technical breach of a law that is outmoded and obsolete and quite another thing to be charged with an indictable offence. Surely we must have some sympathy for those compelled to break the law technically because it was outmoded. I do not know any of these people, but if they were put in a disadvantageous position, it would be a serious case. You could have a district justice who was such a puritan that he would say that, because people were prosecuted before and fined under a statute — even though it was outmoded — they were to be refused a licence. That would be quite a serious matter.
I do not think any hardship is being imposed on these people, or intended to be imposed on them. The laws we are passing here do not impose any more restrictions than the existing laws. If we were to give these people the consideration sought, we would be condoning the offences.
I think that, in view of the speeches made by some of the Senators now, they should have opposed the Second Reading of this Bill, because what is being attempted is a watering-down of this measure to such an extent that it will be of little use at all. I think we have to come back to the essential point and realise that this Bill is being introduced to overcome abuses which were definitely rampant throughout the city and other parts of the country. To suggest that the status quo should remain and that these people should be allowed to continue defeats the whole intention of the Bill.
I do not think it is right to say that establishments which have been in operation here for ten years should, because of that particular fact, be allowed to continue, irrespective of the character of the people conducting them, irrespective of the type of machines and irrespective of the people who frequent these establishments. I think that would be wrong. I do suggest that Senator Carton should allow the section to stand; that is, that the local authorities should have sole discretion in the matter and that licences should be granted by the courts after taking into account all the relevant factors.
What is meant, in effect, is that previous prosecutions will not place them in any privileged position, nor will it place them at any disadvantage before the court. The fact that they had been prosecuted before does not put them in any privileged position, nor does it place them at any disadvantage. The amendment wants to give them a privilege. I say now, and I give the assurance, that a previous prosecution will not be used against these people, when they make an application before the courts, nor will it give them any privilege. I cannot accept the amendment.
I am merely asking that these people be assured continuity in the business they have been engaged in over the years.
I am certain that district justices will take into consideration all the factors. I think few Senators here have not been prosecuted in other days, but that fact was not taken into consideration when they became Senators. In this particular case, the district justices will regard the applications in their proper light, taking into consideration all the factors, provided the applications have been passed by the local authority.
I do not wish anybody to construe my remarks as an effort to defend criminals. These are all decent people who have been carrying on their business and they want no privilege, unless one can say it is a privilege to be permitted to carry on one's ordinary occupation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 15 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 29:—
To delete sub-section (3).
Under this sub-section, it is provided that, if any ticket, counterfoil or coupon for use in a lottery is found at any place or premises searched in pursuance of a search warrant under the Act, it shall be evidence, until the contrary is proved, in a prosecution for a contravention that the person having control over the place or premises had it in his possession for sale or distribution. The first suggestion I have to make on that matter is that this is the sort of sub-section one might find in emergency legislation dealing with public order. I think it is quite unreasonable that, in a normal statute, the ordinary principles of justice should not apply, that is, that the onus should be on the prosecution to prove the case.
It seems to me that there might be difficulty about the phrase "person in control of the premises". It does seem strange that a lottery should be regarded as such a terrible thing that legislation of this kind should be necessary to deal with it. I would ask the Minister whether or not he has considered that the ordinary law should apply and that, if a person is found in possession of such coupons or counterfoils, it is for the State to prove the case.
Sub-section (3) provides that, where a premises is searched, and lottery tickets or other documents are found, there will be a presumption that they were kept for sale. It must be remembered that, before a search warrant is issued, the district justice must issue a search warrant and must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting it. It is necessary that the person concerned should show, in fact, where he got the coupons or counterfoils. It would be absurd that the police should have to undertake the difficult and impossible task of showing that they were for sale.
Mr. Douglas
I support the case made by Senator Cox, because I feel that this sub-section, if it is allowed to remain part of the Bill, is taking away the rights of the citizen. It is quite clear that, if tickets are found on the premises, they might easily have arrived there by chance. I receive quite a number of tickets for lotteries from Northern Ireland and other parts of the world and they may be lying on my desk for two or three days before I tear them up. The fact is the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is aiding and abetting these lotteries when he delivers these letters to my office. Under this section, then, we could persuade the district justice that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was, in fact, aiding and abetting, and we should be entitled to a search warrant to search the post office to see what tickets were there. That is what the sub-section provides, so far as I can see. I think the onus should be on the prosecution to prove that the tickets were there for sale.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
I do not know whether depending on a district justice to grant a search warrant is giving great protection to the citizen. Everyone will remember a year or so ago when a district justice issued search warrants, with the result that the stock-in-trade of a certain company was taken out of their possession. I do seriously say that it is not right, in dealing with a comparatively small matter like lottery tickets, to insert provisions of this kind, merely to simplify the task of prosecution. I think it is a possible precedent of a very dangerous nature and I should certainly ask the Minister to consider it. I will withdraw the amendment now, but I ask the right to raise it again.
The district justice must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt before he issues a warrant under this section. It is not new, because sub-section (3) is on the lines of Section 2 of the Gaming Act, 1845. If there is any point in getting the legal representatives in the Attorney-General's office to further consider the matter, I have no objection.
I think one should be very careful in statutes of this kind in regard to inserting these extraordinary powers which may be necessary in a matter of national emergency. I think it is much more important to preserve the ordinary liberty and the ordinary rights of the citizen in a court of justice.
I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Cox. It was always understood that a man was innocent until proved guilty. The less legislation we have putting the onus on the defendant to prove himself innocent, the better. It should be avoided by the Legislature as far as possible.
While an ex-parte application may be made to a district justice to grant a search warrant, that, in itself, is no justification why the owner of a premises should be presumed guilty, until he can prove that he is innocent of the offence alleged.
I will raise the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In lines 6 to 8 to delete "other than an announcement of the results of a lottery declared by any provision of this Part not to be unlawful" and substitute "not being a lottery declared by any provision of this Act not to be unlawful".
The sense of the section is that no person shall print, publish in any newspaper or periodical publication, exhibit on any cinema screen or broadcast any announcement concerning a lottery, other than the result of the lottery. When a lottery is lawful and has been licensed, there is no reason whatever why it should not be referred to in a newspaper or broadcast. It seems to me that this section envisages a lottery as something almost as bad as a plague. It seems to me to be carrying legislation to a ridiculous extent. If, under this Bill, lotteries are very carefully supervised, are licensed and declared to be legal, I do not see why on earth they could not be referred to in newspapers or advertised. Why should they be restricted to an announcement of the result? If a charity runs a lottery which is perfectly normal, why, in the name of goodness, should there not be references to it in a newspaper? It is a question of importance, for again it touches on public rights.
I support this amendment very strongly. I spoke on the matter on Second Reading and drew attention to it. The more I think of it, the more it seems to me to be very unfair to the liberty of the Press, the public and the promoters of lotteries. If a lottery is not legal under this part of the Act, then, of course, no reference to anything in that connection could be made in the Press. If a lottery is legal under this part of the Act, like Senator Cox, I cannot see why the newspapers should not be allowed to give it publicity. Either the lottery is against the public interest or not. If it is against the public interest, it is not allowed to take place under this Bill; but if people are allowed to promote lotteries under this part of the Bill, they should be allowed to promote them successfully and there is no way to promote them successfully other than by advertising them in the Press. It would be very unfair to newspaper proprietors to deprive them of any source of revenue. If the lottery is in accordance with the law under this Bill and if there are no objections from any other point of view, I cannot see why the promoters should not be allowed to get full publicity and the Press enabled to secure whatever advertising revenue they can derive from it.
I agree with the sentiments expressed, but I should like Senator Cox to explain how the substitution of his wording would, in fact, enforce the principles he has put before us.
I should like to inquire as to what is meant by this section, because it is so all-embracing.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator will deal with the amendment first and we can discuss the section later.
I accept the Chair's ruling, since a question has been asked of Senator Cox in regard to the amendment.
The wording of the section, according to my amendment, would be:—
"No person shall print, publish in any newspaper or periodical publication, exhibit on any cinema screen or broadcast by radio any notice or announcement concerning a lottery, not being a lottery declared by any provision of this Act not to be unlawful, or cause or procure any such notice or announcement to be so printed, published, exhibited or broadcast or knowingly circulate or cause or procure to be circulated any newspaper or periodical publication containing any such notice or announcement."
Some of these lotteries for charitable purposes are promoted by commercial organisations with an eye on the 40 per cent. expenses allowed. I am afraid that it would interfere with parochial lotteries got up in a local area. When it is only 40 per cent. they may not be in a position to advertise very widely, but they can communicate through the post with voluntary helpers to try to secure the sale of tickets for the particular lottery. If you are going to allow the Press, radio and other forms of advertising to be used, then the small lotteries will be unable to carry on and the commercial organisations will take over. No one is interfering with the liberty of the individual or the Press in the country. We agreed to a lottery up to £500 — against my own views. I understand, from the deputation that met me, that the expenses of some of the lotteries were unduly high and that there was too small a prize for the object for which the lottery was organised. I have one lottery in mind. They told me it was for a very worthy cause and that the people subscribed very liberally throughout the country at 1/- per ticket. They told me that £1,100 was collected weekly. Of that £1,100 over £700 went in expenses and only £200 went towards the worthy object in respect of which the people had purchased the tickets. In other words, they were paying 1/- for a very worthy cause, believing that it was going to the object, and then found that the larger amount was going in expenses. In this case, we have confined it to 40 per cent. expenses. Then they can use the voluntary helpers. I believe that will achieve the purpose.
I believe that, unwittingly, the Minister is rather unfair. I have some other amendments later on trying to deal with this very question of the proportion of the amount collected which will be available for the charity. The Minister has offered his rejection of the right to publish particulars in the newspapers on the ground that the distribution might not be a fair distribution or might not leave much in the hands of the charity. I think a very big principle is involved. I will not press the amendment now. Once again, I will reserve the right to bring it up on the next stage and I trust I may press it then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
While I understand that the amendment has been withdrawn, my opinion of it is that it would have the effect of putting the section in the position that it would be just as well it were not in the Bill at all. I think Senator Cox would agree with me. He might be right, because it is just another section that will create another group of lawbreakers. It is ominous in its definition as to printing, publishing, and so forth. What is meant by these words? If I read it correctly, it means that anybody printing or publishing or circulating a newspaper containing the result of a lottery is committing an offence.
I take it the Minister refers only to the newspapers operating within the limits of this State. He forgets, however, that quite a lot of journals, newspapers and periodicals of one kind or another are imported. Surely it is elementary to imagine that since a daily or Sunday newspaper is not allowed to print these results, they can insert a notice saying: "We are not allowed to print the results of the lottery, but they will appear in such and such a cross-Channel paper which is circulated in this country." What can the Minister do about that? Furthermore, if I read the section correctly, it means this. Once that begins to happen — and this is elementary, my dear Watson — it will boost the sales of certain journals which are not printed in this country, but which are circulating here.
If the Minister intends to enforce the law — and I know that, as far as this Bill has gone up to now, it is not enforceable because it brings the law into contempt — he will then be forced to prosecute newsagents up and down the country. I should like to know what is going to happen? I should like to hear from Senator Cox or Senator Walsh if they would be prepared to regard the section in that light. Without any legal knowledge, I suggest that what I have said is the position. If the Minister tries to put this section into force, he will have to prosecute all our newsagents selling the results of these illegal lotteries which appear in journals that are not printed in this country.
It seems to me that if such publication is considered undesirable, there should be some provision in the Bill, and I am not aware that there is, for prosecuting people who insert these advertisements — the newspapers and the other periodicals that accept these advertisements, and not merely the people who insert them. There is a great deal in what Senator O'Reilly says. Cross-Channel newspapers can come in and they would be completely free from any prosecutions under the Bill, as far as I know. There ought to be some penal provision in the Bill for punishing the newspapers as well as the promoters of the lotteries who insert the advertisements. There may be another relevant section in another part of the Bill, but I am not aware of it at the moment.
I do not share Senator O'Reilly's fears in connection with the matter. For the information of Senators, the British Football Pools Act has a similar clause, and there is no objection to it, and it is working very satisfactorily. The Press will not insert advertisements, in respect of any particular lottery or sweep, unless they are paid for doing so.
It does not answer my point. Really, it is annoying to feel that one is right and yet that one is not getting an opinion one way or another. Will this section create a position such as I have outlined, assuming that the results are printed in cross-Channel journals circulating here? I argue that if our newsagents sell those papers or periodicals, they will be breaking the law so far as this section is concerned and should be prosecuted, if this section becomes law. They may not be prosecuted because we have such a bundle of statute law in this country which is not enforced, but, in my opinion, that is the sort of thing that makes laws ridiculous. Why add to that sort of law? I have been arguing on that principle all day. The Minister's reply has not satisfied me. If cross-Channel journals start printing the results and if those journals are sold by our newsagents here, then I submit they are breaking the law and should be prosecuted.
I am quite satisfied that a person who sold such a newspaper could be prosecuted and would have directly infringed the Act. Furthermore, I believe that anyone who procured such a newspaper to be circulated might be prosecuted. Therefore, there is quite a wide range of possible prosecutions.
Is it not time we stopped passing laws such as that?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In paragraph (b), line 22, after "concerned" to add "or to members of the society".
It would appear that a lottery confined to the members of a society is not excluded, but the notice must be exhibited only on the premises of the society. I can visualise occasions where, say, a golf club, or some other society, may run a sweepstake confined to the members, and, if it is required that the notice may only be exhibited in the premises, the society cannot notify members who are not in the habit of frequenting the premises. The amendment would permit members of the society to be notified.
The type of lottery envisaged under Section 23 is a small office or factory lottery, promoted on the day of a big race, where the contribution is 1/- or 6d. Lotteries in which a written notice is sent to members are generally of a more ambitious nature and are seldom confined to the members of the societies. These can operate under Section 27.
If the lottery is confined entirely to the members of the society, is there any reason why the members should not be permitted to be notified?
I am not wedded to it. I am prepared to accept it, because I understand the Senator's point of view. You will have in many places like a factory, fellows who are not workers in the factory and they will take a chance for a 1/- stake. I will accept the amendment.
I want to comment on the wording of the section. It reads: "A lottery shall not be unlawful if... (b) there is no written notice of announcement relating to the lottery except a notice on the premises of the society or other persons concerned."
Does that mean that the notice has to be printed on the person?
They can have their wives and daughters and sons in it, although they would not be members of the staff of the factory. I am accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask, for the sake of clarification, in relation to sub-section (b), just precisely what is meant by the words "no person may win more than the value of the £25 in the lottery." In that case, if these two conditions are fulfilled, the lottery shall not be unlawful. Does that mean that the first prize shall not be more than £25, or that the total value of all the prizes shall not be more than £25, because, in theory, a person might win one, two, three or more prizes? I do not think the sub-section is sufficiently clearly drafted to indicate whether it means the first prize or the total value of all the prizes, which, in theory, at any rate, might be won by the one person.
The value of any prize at a whist drive.
The value of all the prizes taken together, or each individual prize? One person might win £25 and the others might win £25. It seems to be very vague.
One person may win a £25 prize. There may be a second prize.
In some lotteries, a person might win the first and second prizes. Does that mean that the first prize should not be more than £15?
There was a big debate in the Dáil on this.
It does seem to me that, if the first prize is £25, the same person could not win the second.
Without making the lottery illegal.
Mr. Douglas
It would appear to me, reading this section, that you could have in an extreme case prize money to the value of £25 and all a promoter has to do is to see that no one wins more than £25.
Would the Minister consider including the word "total"?
I tried to meet the wishes of the Dáil, and, against my own personal views, I accepted the Dáil's amendment. As I have already pointed out, our desire is to make a Bill that will not encourage gambling. I believe that is the desire of Senators and Deputies, but I realise that this will not be the last Bill and that some other Government will have to try to remove the defects.
This House may not be very important, but I do not see why we should be asked to pass a section which to any intelligent person is clearly meaningless, simply because it was adopted at the suggestion of some Deputy in the Dáil. It is perfectly clear that the wording of this section is completely unclear, and I think it is only reasonable that the Minister should tell us what he does mean by it. That is not asking very much. I do object to an answer being given that asks us to adopt a meaningless section because the Dáil has approved of it.
Does the section not really mean that no single prize offered should be of a higher value than £25, and, if it means that, is there any objection to saying that?
I will see if there is any point in what the Senator raises.
It could be amended now and the Minister could change it again, if he wants to, on the next stage.
I think we ought not to pass the sub-section as it stands.
Perhaps Senator Cox would apply his mind to my wording and see if he could improve on it —that no money prize in a lottery shall be of greater value than £25.
Yes, but that implies that there might be a lot of prizes of that value.
Yes, if that is what is meant.
I am prepared to accept it, if it meets with the approval of the Seanad.
Very well; that is clear, but it means that there could be a number of prizes of that size.
Senator Hayes's suggestion would mean that no prize will be of greater money value than £25 and would suggest that you could have £24, £23, £22 and so on right down the line.
I suggest that there should be only one prize in any one lottery. I am not going to frame it. It is not my job. Apparently the whole thing does not make sense as it is.
I agree with Senator Carton, not that there should be only one prize, but that it would be possible to have one prize of £25 and another of £24 19s. 11d. and so on and to have a lottery to the value of thousands of pounds. That could happen, but it is unlikely. The Minister said a lot of things to-night and I agree with him on one, that this will not be the last measure dealing with this question. I am totally with him in that, because there are so many anomalies in this whole Bill and each section of it that we may have 98 people out of every 100 technically breaking the law, if it is to be enforced. I know it will not be. It would be a joke if this measure were to be enforced, and there would be such an uproar that the Minister or some other Minister would be in here very quickly to amend it, if it became an Act.
Did Senator O'Reilly ever attend a dance in the country?
Then he knows that there is never a lottery for £1,000 or anything like that.
He knows that 95 per cent. of the people will go there for the object for which the dance is held and not for the purpose of gaining a large amount of money. They may have a lottery at a dance where you would have a couple of hundred people and you would give an inducement of perhaps £15 and two prizes of £7, but nothing more than that. I am prepared to look into the matter on the Report Stage to ensure that no prize will be greater than £25.
The total prize money in any one lottery should not exceed £25.
Mr. Douglas
I was going to say just what Senator Carton has said. I entirely agree with the Minister that this Bill should be an effort to restrict gambling, but under the section as we have it at the moment, and even with Senator Hayes's suggested amendment, we are not attempting to restrict gambling, but trying to encourage it. This section should be worded to state that the total prize fund in any lottery at a dance shall not exceed £25 and it should be left to the promoters to decide how that £25 will be divided up. That would meet the point the Minister is anxious about.
I am prepared to accept the principle of Senator Hayes's suggestion, and bring in an amendment on the Report Stage that will meet the wishes of the Seanad.
Senators will remember the lottery in "Alice in Wonderland", in which everyone was given a prize.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In paragraph (c), line 46, before "as" to insert "or night".
Quite frequently, in rural areas particularly, carnivals and bazaars go on well after midnight. This may be only a technical point, but it seems to me that, if the announcement of the result of the draw takes place after midnight, it would be illegal as the section stands, and accordingly it would be very desirable and necessary to permit the announcement to be made not only on the same day as stated, but to add the words "or night".
I agree with the suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In paragraph (e), line 49, to delete "10/-" and substitute "30/-".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This matter has been dealt with on an earlier section.
May I, with your permission, Sir, refer to an observation made by the Minister in relation to the £25 prize at a dance, when he said that he thought it would have to be something like that to make it attractive. I have performed callisthenics jumping up and down here on this amendment and trying to make the other suggestion of mine, regarding the 30/-, attractive also. I wish the Minister would think in terms of that section, as he does in connection with the dance-hall prizes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1), line 56, before "in" to insert "or the Six Counties known as Northern Ireland".
Section 26 provides that a lottery shall not be unlawful, if its promoters and directors are wholly within the State, which, of course, implies that it is unlawful, if it is not conducted wholly within the State. I have put down an amendment to that to say "in the State or in the Six Counties known as Northern Ireland". The sub-section as it stands would clearly make illegal a lottery promoted here for a charity in Northern Ireland. That, I think, is utterly unthinkable. I imagine that the last thing anybody wants in this House is to do anything which in any way savours of or helps Partition, and if we pass legislation, the effect of which is that a charity in Northern Ireland could not promote for its own purposes a lottery down here, we are legislating something that we should not legislate.
As will appear in other amendments, I have in mind the case of the Mater Hospital in Belfast, which, for reasons I cannot go into, has been denied by the Government of Northern Ireland the reliefs and grants and so on which are accorded to other hospitals in that area. The Mater Hospital in Belfast is a hospital of the religion of the great majority of the people in the 32 Counties and of a section which is very nearly one-half in the Six Counties. I think it is a hospital which should lie very close to our hearts. Unless we accept the principle of Partition, I can see no reason why we should not help such a hospital of our own people in Northern Ireland as a hospital of our own down here. This section excludes absolutely the possibility of a lottery here which is promoted outside. I would very strongly urge that it is very wrong that we should do that. I know that the lottery run on behalf of that particular hospital in Belfast is essential to its continuance and existence there. Senator Walsh's amendment is similar to mine and we might combine forces, as his points are probably the same.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Cox has amendment No. 54 dealing with some of the matters he has mentioned. He may care to discuss them now.
If this amendment is not accepted, I take it that amendment No. 54 will fall?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We can take a decision on amendment No. 54 later on.
I am quite prepared to take it on amendment No. 54, if I am defeated on this one.
I should like to support the amendment proposed by Senator Cox, in view of the fact that the Hospitals Sweepstakes have saved the central and local authorities many millions of pounds, by assisting in the erection of hospitals. The Sweepstakes have also assisted the voluntary hospitals. It is only reasonable that the Mater Hospital in Belfast should be assisted, the same as voluntary hospitals elsewhere. It provides excellent facilities and services for the people in Northern Ireland, particularly our nationalist people. This voluntary hospital has been treated unfairly and, unlike hospitals in this State, it has to carry on without any State assistance. Considering the substantial amount contributed by the nationalists there towards the Hospitals' Trust Fund here, it is only fair that we should reciprocate by permitting the Y.P. Pools, which circulate here at the moment, to continue. It is only a small concession for the Minister to make and it would show our sympathy and consideration for our northern nationalists. Lip-service is given from time to time here, but this amendment would be a practical way of showing our goodwill towards the fight they are waging against great odds in maintaining this extremely well-run institution. If this Bill is passed in its present form it will be a serious blow to that institution and it is hard to see how it can continue. I myself had the privilege each week of subscribing to this hospital through these pools and I would feel very sore if I were deprived of that privilege, in view of the regard we must have for our people there and the fact that other hospitals are getting 100 per cent. grants, while this hospital does not benefit from the health services that apply to Northern Ireland.
I am in general sympathy with what has been said by Senator Cox and Senator Walsh. If we accept Senator Cox's amendment, sub-section (1) of Section 26 would read strangely:—
"A lottery shall not be unlawful if it is promoted and conducted wholly within the State or the Six Counties known as Northern Ireland in accordance with a permit or licence."
Section 27, sub-section (3) says:—
"A permit shall not be granted more than once in six months for the benefit of any one beneficiary."
That would mean that the permit could be given only once in six months. If it is a lottery licensed under Section 28 (2) (c), the total value of the prizes is £500. That might exclude the lottery which Senators have in mind. Are they satisfied that, by these amendments, asking for the inclusion of lotteries promoted in Northern Ireland, they are bringing about the circumstances for which they have devised the amendments?
I have set down other amendments for later sections, which will arise in due course. I understand that it is likely that the Matter Hospital could continue, perhaps not as well as in the past, if there is a limitation on the prize money, but it will not continue in a satisfactory way. Naturally, one has to deal with each of the sections as it comes along. I repeat that I have been told on the very highest authority that this lottery is vital to the hospital and I feel that, if we let that hospital in Belfast down, we will be making a very poor show.
The two Senators have made it clear that they are endeavouring to help the Y.P. Pools. Everybody here will have the greatest sympathy with the object of the two amendments, but the question is whether these methods are the best. There are two separate methods. Senator Cox's remedy is a general inclusion of the Six Counties. It is quite clear that, if we were to accept it or Senator Walsh's amendment, the consequential amendments would afterwards be inserted. Senator Walsh is pressing to allow such lotteries outside the State as may be permitted by the Minister. That would put the Minister for Justice here in rather a difficulty.
The Bill as it stands does not prevent the Mater Hospital, or the Foreign Missions, or any such body in Northern Ireland from benefiting from a lottery which is promoted within our territory.
It seems to me that the remedy would be that the Mater Hospital, or any other such charity outside the State, should be able to benefit from the promotion of a lottery held, promoted and conducted within the State. In other words, if it is desired to have the sale of tickets for that purpose, which is entirely a praiseworthy purpose, then these tickets should be sold under the aegis of an organisation within the State. It is essential, I think, that we should be able to supervise anything of that kind and that is a suggestion that is made —that these tickets should be sold under the aegis of a separate body formed here. There is no objection to that, I think, and there should be no difficulty in obtaining the necessary permission. That would be a more practical and a more desirable way of accomplishing the objects which Senator Cox and Senator Walsh have in mind than the methods set out in the two amendments.
I support what Senator Hayes has said. Most of us in this House agree that we should support the Matter Hospital, but I do not think that supporting the Y.P. in the form suggested in this amendment is the best way to do it, because in that way we would not only help the Mater Hospital, but also the Northern Ireland Government who are able to collect almost as much from the Y.P. Pools as the Mater Hospital does. If we allow the Y.P. Pools to be run here in the South, we would be able to control it and the whole of the money deriving from it would go to the Mater Hospital without any deductions.
This is a matter I have discussed in very great detail with the authorities responsible for the Mater Hospital in Belfast. They take the view that there could be so much cheating and dishonesty about a lottery that unless they could continue to operate as they have in the past, they could not stand over it. There is the further point that a separate organisation here would, of course, involve a great deal of additional expense.
On the tax position, it is very difficult to answer that or to say what really the position would be, but I would press extremely strongly that if a charity in Northern Ireland wishes to run a lottery here, it should be permitted to do so. It has to obtain the permission provided under the Act before it can run it.
Senator Cox's last speech surprises me, because the implication was that they could not get honest people in the Twenty-Six Counties to run the lottery for the benefit of the Mater Hospital. That is an absurd argument. I agree with Senator Hayes and Senator Bergin in what they have said and there is the fact that we should not do anything which would favour the partition of the country. The fact is we would be subsidising the Six-County Government to a very large extent. The Mater Hospital got something like £130,000 a year from the Twenty-Six Counties out of the pools and I am not so sure that that would not be an item in favour of the policy of Partition.
The first point which Senator McHugh made struck me when Senator Cox was speaking. Surely he is doing a disservice to the promoters of this lottery on behalf of the Mater Hospital, Belfast, when he states that they feel they could not get in the Twenty-Six Counties a group of people who would honestly conduct the lottery? That is an absurd suggestion to make and I doubt very much that it could be correct. I know there is cheating in connection with lotteries and that is what the Minister is endeavouring to deal with in the Bill.
Senator Cox also suggested the expense that would be incurred, but surely, if there is so much goodwill, the goodwill of which Senator Cox and Senator Walsh have spoken, it would be possible to get a voluntary group of reputable and honest people who would do this work and continue to provide for the Mater Hospital an income from this part of the State. If that is impossible, then human nature is worse than the most pessimistic of us ever thought it to be.
I did not wish to make any suggestion of dishonesty about this matter. What I suggested was that those who are responsible have always looked after this particular lottery. They have gone fully into it and they feel terribly reluctant to conduct the lottery, unless they are able to supervise it. These people are in a position to guarantee what they are doing and it would be extremely difficult to operate the lottery simultaneously in Dublin and Belfast.
I cannot see that it would be so difficult as Senator Cox says for the Y.P. people to maintain a separate organisation here. We all know that, when this Bill passes, the amount of prize money for the Y.P. will be limited to £500. We should not make the position such that other charities will be placed at a disadvantage—charities such as the Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. Any additional expense which would be entailed by the Y.P. setting up a separate organisation here would be offset by leaving out the deductions for taxes which would be deducted, if the pools were run in Northern Ireland. I assume that the amount made here would be free of tax and would run into a considerable amount in a year.
Senator Bergin referred to the fact that the Lourdes Hospital run a pool. I should like to refer the Senator to the fact that the Hospitals' Trust Fund have provided substantial amounts towards that hospital over a short period of years. Tickets for the Hospitals' Sweepstakes cost £1 and membership of the Y.P. Pools is only 1/-.
Senator McHugh and Senator Bergin have referred to the fact that the Northern Government would benefit to some extent by subscriptions to these pools in Northern Ireland. We must not forget the fact that our Government benefits to a considerable extent from the sweepstakes subscriptions pouring into us from America and other countries, including Northern Ireland. A considerable sum goes to the Government by way of stamp duties. In view of the fact that we are permitting the Hospitals' Trust Fund which runs into a tremendous amount of money and where the people are committed to buy tickets for £1 each, I do not think it is unreasonable to show some reciprocation towards the people who are affected so adversely as the people who are trying to maintain the Mater Hospital.
If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment suggested by Senator Cox, then we should at least include the Mater Hospital as one of the hospitals which should benefit from the funds of the Hospitals' Trust.
There does not appear to be any relevancy in Senator Walsh's argument because the Hospitals' Trust Fund is a different matter. What we are endeavouring to do is to see whether the Mater Hospital in Belfast can be helped. I do not see any other way in which it can be helped by legislation. I do not think that an amendment of the kind Senator Cox proposes should be accepted or any amendment which places the onus on the Minister of permitting certain lotteries outside the State. That is an onus that should not be placed upon any Minister. The suggestion I made, and which Senator Bergin supports, is that it should be possible to have a reputable and competent committee which could run within the State a lottery within the terms of our law for that particular hospital. If that is impossible, I think it is impossible to do anything else
I agree. If it is not possible to set up a separate organisation in our State, it is impossible to do anything. Not more than 40 per cent. will be allowed in regard to the expenses of running a draw. I do not see how the Y.P. Pool could be run; the fact that the prize is confined to £500 would make it impossible. We run pools in the South—there is one for the rehabilitation of people suffering from T.B.—and such draws are run extremely well. It would be better if a group of people could be got together who would handle a pool for the North of Ireland.
We seem to be getting nowhere in the discussion on this section. If we were to remove the section completely from the Bill, would that have any bad effect? The whole thing turns on that point.
"A lottery shall not be unlawful if it is promoted and conducted wholly within the State in accordance with a permit or a licence."
I should like to hear from the Minister whether he regards that sub-section as absolutely imperative.
Would the Minister fear that, by its removal, graver evils would arise?
Would not all kinds of lotteries promoted anywhere then become law?
Take out the word "wholly" and bring in the word "partly".
You would leave yourself wide open.
I suppose so. I am prepared to agree with the Senator on that, but we do not seem to be making any progress towards the solution of the problem raised.
I will withdraw the amendment and raise it again. I think this is a matter of national importance in the true sense.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
As we have gone a certain distance on this Bill and as we are going to take a further stage after Christmas, I wonder whether the House would agree to sit a little later to-night in order to enable us to see what further progress could be made with the Committee Stage?
There is a rather large number of amendments to be dealt with yet.
All right. I do not think it is worth while to go on.
I move amendment No. 36:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) This section shall not render a lottery which is promoted within the State and in respect of which no person outside the State is entitled to purchase any ticket, counterfoil, coupon or chance unlawful by reason only of the fact that documents, books, records, or other papers are transmitted outside the State to the trustees of or to the object of the charitable or philanthropic purpose or purposes for which the lottery is promoted: Provided always that such lottery is duly permitted or licensed under this Act.
This is very much the same point. I hope the Minister will agree with the amendment, if, in fact, there is any desire at all to help the Mater Hospital.
I have provided deliberately that the Mater Hospital may benefit from the charity, but, in order that we may be able to distinguish between bona fide promotions and others, it is essential that records should be available at all times for police supervision, as provided for in Section 51. I think that clause should meet the Senator's point of view.
It does not. If there is a charity outside the State which is the beneficiary of a lottery conducted within the State, it is clear that the records will have to go to the beneficiary outside the State.
Why? I do not understand Senator Cox's point. Must the documents be transmitted outside the State?
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 15th December, 1955.
