I move:—

In sub-section (2), page 3, line 19, to delete the words "may at his discretion" and substitute the words "shall, within fourteen days after the receipt of such application, do one or other as he in his discretion shall think proper of the following things, that is to say," and in line 21 to delete the word "may."

The purpose of this amendment is to impose a limit of time within which the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána must deal with applications by intending bookmakers for certificates of personal fitness. As the Bill stands, the Superintendent need not deal with any application in any particular time, and the amendment imposes a time limit of fourteen days.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), page 3, line 41, to delete the word "fourteen" and substitute the words "twenty-one."

The amendment increases from fourteen to twenty-one days the period within which a bookmaker may apply for a licence. It has been represented that circumstances might arise which would prevent a bookmaker applying within the fourteen days and that the time should be increased to twenty-one days.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), line 13, to delete the words "licensed bookmaker" and substitute the word "person."

The object of the amendment is to prevent delay in granting registration of betting offices. As the section stands, the application for registration could only be made by a licensed bookmaker, a person who has actually in the first instance gone through all the preliminaries and who has obtained a bookmaker's licence, who should then proceed to go through the necessary formalities for getting premises registered. The amendment provides that the application for registration of premises need not be delayed until the bookmaker's licence has been obtained, but of course the registration would not be effected if the bookmaker's licence were not granted.

Will the effect of the amendment be to allow any person to get his premises licensed and then put a bookmaker into them as tenant?

No. It is the premises that are licensed.

In respect of a person?

Yes.

So that a person who is not a bookmaker might own the licence?

He might apply at the one time for a certificate of personal fitness to carry on as a bookmaker and he might at the same time apply for a licence of the premises. When the certificate of personal fitness was granted the licence for the premises might be granted, instead of his having to wait until he got the licence before he could apply.

Would such a licence increase the valuation of the premises? If the bookmaker has not the licence himself, but the premises he occupies are licensed, it would be something like a publichouse. If the bookmaker leaves before the expiration of his licence, will the newcomer be entitled to carry on betting?

No, it will not increase the value of the premises. Deputy Johnson will see that sub-section (a) of Section 8 provides as a ground of objection "that the applicant is not the holder of a bookmaker's licence." It simply means that if a man is getting a licence of personal fitness there will be less delay than if he had to be first licensed as a bookmaker before he could apply at all.

Tobacconists' shops have been largely used for bookmaking in connection with races, and, generally, with gambling. Under this requirement is there anything to prevent tobacconists' shops, for instance, in back places and in unlimited numbers taking out licences for bookmaking on their premises on behalf of one or other of the proprietors, or the proprietor, as a bookmaker? That seems to me to be the danger of this Bill. It might be a valuable addition to the business of a small toobacconist, or even to a large tobacconist. It is not limited to tobacconists—I am only giving them as an instance—but as an adjunct to the business already carried on it would naturally be an asset to have a licence to carry on bookmaking in such places where people could congregate for betting. Is there any limit as to that?

I will read the Deputy Section 15.

(1) It shall be lawful for the registered proprietor of any registered premises, so long as he continues to be a licensed bookmaker, to carry on in such premises the business of bookmaking subject to the provisions of this Act.

(2) No person except the registered proprietor of the premises shall carry on any trade, profession, or business whatsoever on any registered premises.

(3) The registered proprietor of any registered premises shall not carry on nor permit to be carried on in such premises nor permit such premises to be used for the purpose of carrying on any trade, profession or business whatsoever save and except only the business of bookmaking carried on by the registered proprietor.

I move:—

In sub-section (2), page 4, line 23, to delete the words "may at his discretion" and substitute the words "shall, if he is satisfied that the applicant is either a licensed bookmaker or the holder of a certificate of personal fitness issued after or not more than seven days before the date of the application, do one or other as he in his discretion shall think proper of the following things within fourteen days after the receipt by him of such application, that is to say," and in line 26 to delete the word "may".

I move:—

In paragraph (a), page 4, lines 31 and 32, to delete the words "not the holder of a bookmaker's licence" and substitute the words "neither a licensed bookmaker nor the holder of a certificate of personal fitness."

This amendment is a corollary, as I might say, to the first amendment to Section 7, that is, a person who applies for a certificate of suitability of premises must either be a licensed bookmaker or a person who has got a certificate of personal fitness and can get a bookmaker's licence in due course.

I move:—

"In paragraph (c) to delete all words after the word "school," line 35 to the end of the paragraph, line 36, and substitute the words "an employment exchange, a factory or works, or other similar place in or near which large numbers of persons congregate."

Paragraph (c) speaks of premises that "are in close proximity to a place of worship, a religious institution, a school, a labour exchange, or other similar place or institution." I do not know what is meant by "similar" in that respect. Is it similar to a place of worship, similar to a religious institution, similar to a school, similar to a labour exchange, or is there anything common to all these places to which any other place would be similar? I think there is, that is, a place where people congregate, and as I think it is desirable that places where people congregate for their employment should be grounds for objection, as in the case, say, of a labour exchange—the term "labour exchange" is now extinct, and it is called an employment exchange—the amendment is put forward with the object of trying to define what is similar in respect of these places referred to in the paragraph.

I have no objection to the amendment, which perhaps does make it a little clearer.

I move:—

In paragraph (c), page 4, line 36, to add after the word "institution" the words "or are situate in a residential area."

This matter was raised by Deputy Johnson, who has elsewhere on the Paper an amendment dealing with the subject. It provides that it shall be a ground of objection for the registration of premises if the premises are situated in a residential area.

What is meant by the words "residential area"? I think that that is about the vaguest term you could possibly have.

I think we will have to try to see what the District Justice will make of it.

I move: Before paragraph (d) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—"That the premises are in close proximity to premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors." I want, if possible, to guard against the chance that a licensed bookmaking house shall be open next door to a public-house. It is intended, I gather, to make the carrying on of bookmaking in a public-house more difficult, and in making it more difficult, I would like to guard against evasion by merely opening next door. I do not think that the amendment could be made effective in small towns where probably every house but one is a public-house. The acceptance of this amendment does not prohibit, but it makes it possible for the Gárda Síochána to make it a ground of objection, which may be appealed against before the District Justice.

I am afraid that the wording would affect the District Justice. I think that Deputy Johnson has himself stated the argument against his amendment, namely, that in a great many towns in the country there are probably no houses that are not in close proximity to a publichouse. There is no difference in this amendment between the house next door and a house across the street. If it were interpreted in that way there would be many towns in which you could not get a bookmaking premises unless close to a public-house, and then there would probably be a continuation of the existing system by which bookmaking is carried on surreptitiously, and with a sort of public sympathy which is almost impossible to suppress. I think that the amendment, having regard to the conditions in many places, goes further than is wise.

I would point out that the amendment does not prohibit the opening of a bookmaking establishment next door to a public-house, but it makes it possible for that to be made a ground of objection by a superintendent of the Gárda Síochána. It may well be that the number of cases where that would be a legitimate objection would not be great, but, if there were only one case where it would be a legitimate objection, unless some clause, such as this, were put in, it would not be possible for the Gárda Síochána to put that as an objection. The phrase runs: "And on no other ground whatsoever." You may have a publichouse with a house suitable for betting next door, and there might be a side door which would make them practically the same premises, and, thereby, the Act would be evaded. The fact that we are restricting possible grounds of objection so closely would justify us in making this as one possible ground of objection. It is unlikely to be used as an objection in the case of small towns where every house is licensed, but it may well be that in a city you would have public-houses with a keen demand for the premises next door because of their proximity and accessibility. I want, if possible, to have that raised as an objection, if the circumstances require it, as, unless you have such an amendment as this, such ground of objection would be ruled out and could never be raised by the Gárda Síochána.

I think that the amendment goes rather far in the sense that it does not recognise that a change is now taking place under this Bill. Clearly, the matter has gone beyond the point when you could say that the fact of betting premises being next door to a public-house would be a ground of objection. The whole aim of the Bill, so far as I can see, is to provide for the control and supervision of places of this sort. I think that the position has changed from what it has been up to the present, and that you are taking betting transactions out of the surreptitious atmosphere in which, perhaps, the snug of a public-house would be a betting place. If a man is going to make a bet in future he is not going to do it in a surreptitious way. He will walk into a licensed bookmaking premises and, in that way, I think there is a very considerable change. It is a question now of public opinion, and of what effect the Act will have upon betting as a recognised legal transaction. The situation of these betting premises, apparently, will not matter unless the business is conducted in a way that is unsatisfactory for the people in the locality. I think that Deputy Johnson on reconsideration will, perhaps, come to the conclusion that the situation of the premises is not going to have any effect in this matter.

I think the Deputy has mistaken the position somewhat. The section says: "A certificate of suitability of premises may be refused on any one or more of the following grounds and on no other ground whatsoever." There is a distinct prohibition in the Bill for the carrying on of a bookmaking business in a public-house or certain other premises. Further, there is a prohibition regarding proximity to a place of worship, a school, and so forth. We cannot blind ourselves to the fact—it is referred to in a later amendment and it was referred to in a discussion a few days ago—that betting houses in other countries have been used in such a way as to allow a considerable number of people to congregate in them. That is sought to be prohibited in a later amendment. You have to consider not only a betting house being licensed, but a combination of a betting house licensed and a public-house licensed. You may get all the congregation of people in the public-house, and beyond a low wall at the back there may be a licensed bookmaking house. That is a possibility, and there is no prohibition. You cannot object to licensing a house if such practices are carried on, under the Bill as it stands. There would be no ground for objection unless an amendment of this kind was inserted. Therefore, I think it is desirable that power should be given, at least, to object if such circumstances exist, and if the superintendent believes that it is a reasonable ground for objection. He will not object if it is not a reasonable ground, but, if circumstances are such as to justify him in objecting on that ground, he may object. Unless this amendment, or something like it, is inserted, he could have no cause for objection on such ground.

Deputy Johnson must have an awful opinion of licensed traders when he maintains that at the back of a public-house there would be a low wall, over which customers from the public-house would jump if they wanted to make a bet, or they might come from the bookmaker's premises across the wall to the public-house, perhaps, during prohibited hours. I do not think that the amendment will keep people out of the public-house even if betting premises are not next door. In small towns of about 1,400 of a population, or less, there may be 16 or 17 houses which are licensed, and, if the amendment were adopted, it would be impossible to get suitable premises for betting. I hope that in that respect the Minister will accept the amendment, because I am completely against having betting houses in small towns. I think that no bookmaker should be allowed to open premises in a town of under 1,400 population. It will be completely demoralising to the people. You will have women running in with their shillings to put on a horse, and you will probably have children saving up their pennies to back horses, so that the result will be that people who never backed horses before, will become used to betting. Betting will probably become a sort of contagious disease and all the inhabitants will indulge in it. In large towns of 10,000 or 20,000 population there are a sufficient number of premises where bookmakers can establish their offices.

I am completely against betting in small towns and I believe that in years to come the Minister for Finance will find out that honest-minded citizens will be up against these betting saloons, where betting will be legalised, whereas up to the present it has been regarded as illegal. You are giving everybody an opportunity of betting now whether they can afford it or not, and in some cases it may mean that people will be tempted to use money that is entrusted to them and that is not their own property. You are, in fact, encouraging them to steal. In every street you will have notices over doors, "James or Tom So-and-So, bookmaker, is licensed to receive bets," and everyone will be free to walk in. One or two in a town may be lucky and win. It will become generally known in a small town and the result will be that everybody in that town will be doing his best to try to get some money from some source for the purpose of backing a horse. I do not think it is right of the Government to bring licensed premises into small towns to encourage people to bet. You will have workers, I am sorry to say, who will be tempted to go into those places and back money that will be needed by their wives and children, with the result that many of them will have to go hungry. If the temptation was not there they would not bet, and these premises in small towns certainly will be a temptation.

I think Deputy Johnson's amendment is a good one; at least these places should not be beside public-houses. I would like the Minister to specify the population of towns where bookmakers would be allowed to have premises established. It is not right to have three or four bookmakers in a town of a few thousand population.

I think the amendment as it stands would give a very wide power, as the Minister says, to the District Justice. It would be rather unfair to him to have to interpret such a clause. Perhaps I might suggest to Deputy Johnson a better wording of the amendment would be "adjacent to, or communicating directly with, licensed premises."

"Adjacent to," yes.

And communicating with.

That is already prohibited.

"Adjacent to" will define the discretion of the Justice more than it stands at present.

I am satisfied with "adjacent to."

If the words Deputy Johnson proposes were put into the Bill they would be practically mandatory on both the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána and the District Justice. The intention is that licences be granted, shall we say, freely if there is no objection to premises. There shall be no requirement to prove need or demand; there will be none of the restrictions that might be expected in regard to the issue of a new licence for the sale of alcoholic liquor. We do not wish to restrict the issue of licences except where the premises are unsuitable. When we do state the grounds on which a certificate of suitability may be refused it is intended that those grounds should be serious grounds and that they should be taken seriously. If Deputy Johnson's words were in I think the District Justice, with the Act before him, would be practically coerced into supporting a refusal of a licence. That may have effects in many cases that would conflict with the general principle that is in the Bill, and that is intended to be in the Bill in regard to this matter. We want to have no saleable interest in a premises licensed for bookmaking. We do not wish a bookmaking licence to be something like a liquor licence, something that can be sold or something that attaches a special value to the premises. In some of the towns there might be only one or two premises some distance away from premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor. There might be only one house that the Gárda Síochána would not be compelled to object to, and in that way a special value would be given to those premises. We feel that the regulation of bookmaking will be much easier if no new saleable interest is created. Consequently, I think, if Deputy Johnson's amendment were adopted it would lead to one of two things, either the principle which I have indicated being cut across or it would be an indication to both the Gárda Síochána Superintendent and the District Justice to take these grounds of objection somewhat less seriously. I would be disposed to go some distance to meet Deputy Johnson and to have drafted, if possible, before the next stage a section which would make it a good ground for refusing to renew a licence at the end of 12 months if it were in proximity to a licensed premises and if any sort of irregularity or any congregation of people occurred there.

I am quite satisfied with that. I withdraw the amendment.

I move the deletion of paragraph (e), which deals with internal communication. I suggest that various difficulties might arise owing to the fact that premises include part of the house or building and in certain cases serious difficulty might occur in having the bookmaker so to alter his premises that they did not communicate internally with any other premises, and that the various provisions laid down are sufficient to prevent the abuses without this particular provision in paragraph (e).

When, in reply to Deputy Esmonde, I said that somewhere in the Bill there was a prohibition against internal communication, I overlooked the fact that it was in this particular clause. Now I find that the Minister is proposing to delete that. There may be grounds similar to those that he referred to on the last amendment, though I cannot quite appreciate them. I hope he is really convinced of the desirability of this deletion. If a betting-house may not carry on any other business, but may have internal communication with the shop next door, and in this case it may well be with the public-house, then Section 15 is defeated immediately. I think the Minister's amendment is a sad reaction from the original Bill and I can see that the provisions of Section 15 are going to be made have no effect whatever:—

The registered proprietor of any registered premises shall not carry on nor permit to be carried on in such premises nor permit such premises to be used for the purpose of carrying on any trade, profession or business whatsoever save and except only the business of bookmaking carried on by the registered proprietor.

He may have internal intercourse with his next-door neighbour, who is a stationer, tobacconist, a publican or the proprietor of any other business whatever. I think the Minister's proposal is sadly destroying the value of the Bill.

I think, perhaps, with the point of view that Deputy Johnson puts, the balance of argument lies, but it might be somewhat hard and harsh in cases in the City of Dublin to retain this sub-clause. For instance, a person may have, for bookmaking purposes, the ground floor or the top flat in a big block of buildings in O'Connell Street. I believe bookmakers have such premises. If we retain the sub-clause a person who has such premises will have to go out and take a separate house and leave the sort of office he is in at present. On the other hand, I agree with the Deputy that the removal of the sub-clause is very dangerous and would, perhaps, enable some of the other provisions to be defeated. My own view is that I would let this sub-section stand and try during the Report Stage to get a form of words which would meet the case that we had in mind when the amendment to delete the paragraph was put down, without going so far as the entire deletion. I withdraw the amendment.

I move Amendment 13:—

In sub-section (5) to delete paragraph (a) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—

"(a) any party whom the court may consider to be interested either on his own behalf or on behalf of a number of persons, may be heard in opposition to the appeal."

The section provides that where a certificate has been refused on the grounds of personal fitness or unsuitability of premises there may be an appeal to the District Court, but no party except the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána shall be heard in opposition to the appeal. The Revenue Commissioners, presumably, will only be interested on the revenue side. The Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, therefore, is supposed to have at his command all the possible objections and to agree with those objections. The objections are, of course, such objections as are referred to in Section 8.

Now, let us take paragraph (b)—"that the applicant is not the proprietor of the premises." Maybe other people would know that and not the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána. The question as to whether the premises are in close proximity to religious institutions may be a matter of dispute as between the Superintendent and the proprietors or governors of that institution. The question as to whether the applicant had been convicted probably would be known better by the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána than by any other person. In those two or three instances that I have named it may well be that the public, interested people or people affected by the proximity of registered bookmaking premises, would have knowledge more accurate and substantial than the Superintendent.

My desire is that such persons should have the right to appear in answer to an appeal or a refusal. I do not suppose it is a case where there would be very many appearances, but it should be possible for the school authorities or the authorities of the religious institution to make their case to the court in opposition to the demand for a licence. That is the reason I put forward this amendment—to allow them to appear in addition to the Superintendent.

It is intended, and I think the section means, that the Gárda or the Revenue Commissioners shall be heard, but, in addition to being heard themselves, that they should have the right to produce evidence to satisfy the Justice. If there is any doubt about that I will have an amendment at a later stage to make it quite clear. The intention of the section is that the Gárda Superintendent shall be heard in opposition to the appeal, but that he shall, to such extent as may be necessary, support his contention by evidence. Probably he would have to call other members of the Gárda in a great many of these cases to give evidence. The position will be that if the Gárda Superintendent grants the certificate nobody will have anything to say. The licence is then issued. But if the Gárda find grounds for refusing to grant a licence, the person making the application may appeal. It may be taken that the Superintendent of the Gárda, having refused a licence, will try his best to convince the court that he was right in refusing and he will endeavour to have his refusal upheld. If any evidence can be produced before the District Justice to satisfy him that the Gárda Superintendent was right in his contention, it will be produced by the Superintendent.

I think the matter is fully met if the Gárda has the power to call such evidence as he may desire in order to convince the District Justice. I will make certain of that if, on consultation, I find there is any doubt about it. To enable other people to come in quite separately from the Superintendent on an appeal from his decision seems to me to be unnecessary and to be inconsistent with the idea of the practically unrestricted issue of licences. It is certainly inconsistent with the other provisions of the Act which would enable the Gárda Superintendent to issue his certificate and, if he issued it, to have no appeal from the issue.

It will be recognised that my amendment proposes that the Court shall decide. The Court must consider that the person seeking to be heard has a real interest on his own behalf or on behalf of others. I think we ought not to lose sight of the possibility that between the refusal and the date of the hearing of the appeal the Gárda Superintendent may change his mind and that change of mind may not reflect a change of opinion on the part of the interested neighbours.

took the Chair.

The fact that the Gárda happened to change his mind as to the reason for refusal ought not to ensure that the opposition to the appellant would fall. We ought still to allow it to be possible for the Court to call other witnesses in opposition to the appellant in case the Gárda Superintendent may withdraw his opposition, as he may, between the original refusal and the date of the appeal.

You might get the result, if that were done, of having a Superintendent very reluctant to refuse his certificate. I believe if you had a position where some people who took, shall we say, a fanatical line about the carrying on of betting, and if you had a Justice who took the view that any sections of the public, any public organisation with a fair number of members, were entitled to be heard, and if they made it a habit of intervening in all appeals to try if possible to get the number of houses put down, you might really influence the Superintendent against refusals. I think on the whole as the administration of this practically rests with the Superintendent of the Gárda, save that the person wanting a licence and being refused by him may appeal to the District Justice, it is better to leave the whole matter, except in so far as it affects the revenue, to the Superintendent of the Gárda.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move:—

In sub-section (5), page 6, before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

"(b) Section 27 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, shall apply to the appeal in like manner as it applies to the proceedings relating to inland revenue."

This is to enable the Revenue Commissioners to be represented by any officer of Customs and Excise at the hearing.

I move:—

In sub-section (5) to delete paragraph (b) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—

"(b) The Court may confirm the refusal upon any ground mentioned in the written statement of grounds of refusal or upon any other grounds that the Court deems sufficient having regard to all the circumstances of the case."

This is in consonance with the arguments put forward already that the Court should be empowered on grounds other than those stated here, if such grounds are proved to the Court, to refuse the appeal. My feeling in the matter is that you cannot foresee all the possible legitimate grounds and formulate those grounds in the section. The Gárda Superintendent may justify the refusal before the Court on some ground which is not verbally or technically met by the section. But we are supposed to foresee every possible form of words which would indicate the intention, and to put them in the section. I want to give the Court power to confirm the refusal upon other grounds if the Court deems those grounds sufficient, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

I think the arguments that have already been used apply against this amendment. It would mean that we were departing from the principle that all premises might be licensed except premises to which the various sub-sections of Section 8 applied. It might also be unfair to an applicant if something else was to be put up in Court other than the formal ground that a certificate had been refused by the Superintendent, and it would also have the objection that the Court might refuse, possibly on grounds which the Superintendent thought of no consequence, and you might get a position where there was a sort of tug-of-war on the matter between the Superintendent of the Gárda and the District Justice. I do not think that would be desirable.

As I have said already on another section, the question of deciding whether the premises shall or shall not be licensed rests mainly with the Superintendent of the Gárda; it is for him to object if he thinks there is ground for objection, and if he does not object the licence is granted. It is not desirable that his responsibility in the matter should be lessened or that you should have a sort of conflict of standards between him and the District Justice. If you have the District Justice taking a much stricter view than the Superintendent you may have the Superintendent adopting the means that he has readily to his hand of preventing the matter going before the District Justice at all.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), to delete all words from and including the word "was" in line 13, to the word "force," line 15, and substitute the words "at the time of making the application was and had been for not less than nine months previously a licensed bookmaker."

The object of this amendment is that where a person has been licensed as a bookmaker for a period of nine months, and there is objection to the renewal of the licence, the Revenue Commissioners may issue a temporary licence to enable business to be carried on pending the determination of the appeal. I think it would be a great hardship if a person were prevented from carrying on business for a few months or a certain number of weeks. If the objection of the Gárda Síochána were not upheld and if the District Justice allowed them to go on, there would be great complaint that there had been a complete break in the business.

Does the Minister intend that any time limit should be put on temporary licences?

They will be just for the period pending the hearing of the appeal. It certainly would not be more than two or three weeks before the appeal would be disposed of.

It might be very much longer. It depends on the expedition of the court, as well as other matters. There might be an incentive to postponing a hearing of the appeal.

I do not think so, but I can look into that point. It is not a case where there is an appeal from court to court. There is simply an appeal to the District Court which sits at frequent intervals, and I do not think any considerable delay can occur.

—I move:—

"In sub-section (4), page 6, lines 62 and 63, to delete the words "to an officer of the court by which it was revoked or."

The sub-section, as drafted, provides that when a bookmaker's licence is revoked by order of the court the licence must be surrendered within seven days either to an officer of the court or to an officer of Customs and Excise. On reconsideration it is not thought desirable that the court should be concerned with the licence after the revocation, and that it should be returned to the officer of Customs and Excise.

—I move:—

In Sub-section (4), page 8, before Sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) The registered proprietor of any registered premises shall not set up or maintain in such premises any attraction (other than the mere carrying on of his business of bookmaking) which causes or induces or is likely to cause or induce persons to congregate in or outside such premises."

This is a new sub-section to meet a point raised on the Second Reading, and is to prevent the setting up in book-making offices of any attractions that would draw crowds or induce people to congregate on the premises. For instance, it prevents an orchestra from being carried on or anything like that.

I move:—

In Sub-section (5), page 8, line 6, after the word "section" to insert the words "or sets up or maintains in any registered premises any attraction in contravention of this section."

This is consequential on the previous amendment.

I move:—

In sub-section (2), page 9, in lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "and any member of the Gárda Síochána," and in line 21 and line 23 and line 26 to delete the words "or member."

As bookmaking is being legalised by this Bill, it is not considered desirable by the Minister for Justice that the Gárda Síochána should have the power to enter premises that are given by this section, and, accordingly, it is proposed to take the powers of entry for officers of customs and excise. We feel it is necessary that officers of customs and excise should have the powers of entry given, otherwise there may be difficulty in detecting frauds or defalcations of one sort or another.

I move:—

In sub-section (3), page 9, paragraph (d), line 41, to delete the words "or member."

This amendment is consequential.

I move:

In sub-section (3) to delete all words after the word "Act," line 63, to the end of the sub-section.

The section, as drafted, does not prevent the use of a totalisator in club premises where access to the premises is restricted to members. On reconsideration, we think it is desirable that the prohibition should extend to such premises, and, consequently, it is proposed to omit the last three lines of sub-section (3).

I move:—

Before Section 26 to insert a new section as follows:—

"All fees paid on the grant of totalisator licences under this Act and all profits derived from the working of totalisators by the Revenue Commissioners under this Act shall be paid into or disposed for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct."

The amendment is to provide for the payment into the Exchequer of the proceeds of totalisator licences and the money derived from the working of totalisators.

As there is nobody here to speak on behalf of the bookmakers, I should just like to call attention to what are probably rather excessive powers which may be used against the bookmaker. Section 4 says that a certificate of personal fitness may be refused on the ground that the applicant had been previously convicted of a crime or of an offence under this or any other Act. I think it is rather excessive if you are going to allow the Gárda Síochána Superintendent to refuse a certificate because a man had committed the offence of playing football in the streets or riding a bicycle without a light. That seems to be entirely too sweeping.

I think that is perhaps a little too sweeping, and I shall look into it.

Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.

On Friday I shall move to take the remaining stage also.