On the section. I understand that the Minister is aware that a certain section of the public is concerned about the opportunity that exists through the introduction of Section 34 for the alleviation to some extent of a grievance which they have. Perhaps the Minister will understand what I am leading up to if I first of all point out to him that we have licensed bookmakers in this country and that licensed bookmakers operate mainly under the Racing Board Act. They are tax collectors for the Government to a very great extent and they are bound to fulfil all their obligations notwithstanding the Gaming Act. If they do not, if they default and if they are reported to the Racing Board, the board may put them out of business. On the other hand, they have no means of enforcing the law against a client. I am not suggesting that the Gaming Act should be so altered as to permit bookmakers to claim with full force of law for gambling debts, but I do feel that the Minister should recognise that since a certain action took place against the stewards or against the Conyngham Club, as it is known here, there is no means of dealing with defaulters even to the extent of warning them off racecourses.

We are not in the position in which bookmakers are in England where you have a Tattersalls. If a person is reported to Tattersalls not only is the warning-off effective in England but such a person is warned off even in this country. I am not in a position to make a formal suggestion yet, but I was about to discuss the section with a view to ascertaining if the Minister would give any indication that he has something in mind to meet the situation so that if not I would probably try to draft an amendment for the Report Stage that might be acceptable. What I have in mind is this: If the Minister can say—I do not know whether he can or not—on behalf of the Cabinet, or if the Attorney-General can say or indicate that the other Act would be amended so as to restore the Conyngham Club to some status enabling it to enforce—if you like—the law against either the bookmakers or the clients, then I would be quite satisfied with such an undertaking. If not, would the Minister agree that there should be some limited rights attaching to the licensed bookmaker for the recovery of debts? What I intended to suggest was that he might be able to say that the limit to which a court could go would be to grant an instalment order, the court to fix the instalment, and that in the event of the death of either party to the transaction, the whole order would become void. In other words, the family of a very imprudent person would be protected against loss of property arising from a gambling debt. I do not know if that could be done in law but I do believe in justice there should be some protection for these people. They are licensed; they are recognised by law; they collect taxes for the State, if they default they are put out of business but they are not in a position to have any means of collecting from their clients if, when they bring a client to court, he pleads the Gaming Act. I would be satisfied if there was an undertaking that something will be done to bring into being again the Conyngham Club so that it could act as Tattersalls act in England.

I do not know if that can be done under this Bill. Perhaps the Minister might give some indication as to whether or not there are some means of avoiding what I refer to as a hardship, and a very grave hardship, on a section of our community. Quite a number of people are involved. They give considerable employment and so forth. Whether or not people like bookmakers and gambling, the fact remains that we have by legislation in its fullest form recognised their existence and, consequently, I would ask the Minister at this stage if he could indicate any view on the matter.

There is a lot of common sense in the Deputy's remarks. I would, however, refer him to the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. While one may have, as the Deputy points out, grievances on the part of the bookmaker, one has to consider also grievances on the part of the family of some unfortunate individual who might be foolish enough to "plunge" in an effort to recover his losses. For that reason I have nothing to add to the remarks I made on the Second Stage. I regret I am not in a position to meet the Deputy's case, because I agree with a good deal of what he has said. However, I think that if he takes the general position and considers the effects such a provision might have on innocent people, I am sure it would be neither his intention nor his wish to deprive people of their homes.

I paid particular attention to the views expressed by the Minister on that particular matter and I am not unaware that the vast majority of the members of my own Party share the view expressed by the Minister that innocent people must be protected. But, as the Minister stated, there is ground for grievance on the part of the bookmakers and I am asking now if it is not possible to design a limited form of protection. In other words, if a person goes out of his depth and incurs a debt to a bookmaker that bookmaker should be entitled to go to court and obtain a limited judgment. I am not asking that such a judgment should affect a person's property. It could be limited to instalments fixed by the court in full possession of the man's circumstances. His property and his home could be protected. In the event of his death, or the death of the bookmaker, the whole transaction would be void. Surely there is some means of devising some little bit of protection for the bookmaker. It is all one-sided at the moment. The bookmakers do not want the repeal of the Gaming Act. They accept the principles expressed by the Minister. They feel, however, as a result of a court case where the Conyngham Club was found not to have sufficient authority to take the steps they did take—the club is now non-existent—that something should be done either by way of giving them a limited means of recovery or alternatively putting somebody in, like Tattersalls in England, to deal with such matters.

At the present moment I cannot commit myself but I assure the Deputy I will have his remarks considered most sympathetically by the Department in an effort to see if anything can be done.

I do not want the Minister to think I am breaking my word. I do not know when the Report Stage will be taken, but if I do not hear from the Department that something is being designed I will myself try to design some kind of amendment for the Report Stage. If the Minister can get me an assurance that something will be done to amend the situation under the other Act I will be satisfied.

Deputy Boland and I are agreed on this.

Certainly the Minister has expressed my view on that. I would have expressed the same view if I had been over there.

I thought we were going to hear something about making gaming contracts enforceable. I thought there were people who had views on that.

The Minister has expressed my view on that at any rate.

Sub-section (4) of Section 34 seems to be contradictory. The word "stake" requires some definition I think.

There is a definition of "stake". It was introduced as an amendment, amendment No. 3. I do not know whether it covers the point, but there is a definition.

There appears to me to be something contradictory in it. I will be satisfied if the matter is looked into and clarified on the next stage.

The third amendment contains a definition of "stake".

I move amendment No. 50:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute:—

(1) A member of the Garda Síochána may seize any gaming instrument, being a slot-machine prohibited by Section 9 or a gaming instrument having any device by means of which it can be fraudulently operated or which he has reason to believe is being fraudulently operated or used for unlawful gaming.

This is a drafting amendment which follows from some earlier amendments. The point of it is that as the term "slot-machine" is no longer defined as referring solely to a machine to which Section 9 applies, Section 35 must be amended to provide that it is only the slot-machines to which Section 9 applies that may be seized at any time. The reason they may be seized is, of course, that they are illegal in themselves.

Under this, will the Guards go in with full authority?

It says "enter and have free access to".

I move amendment No. 51:—

In sub-section (1), line 17, to delete "an officer of the Garda Síochána" and substitute "a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Inspector"; in sub-section (2), lines 22 and 23, to delete "officer of the Garda Síochána" and substitute "member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Inspector", and in sub-section (2), line 24, to delete "officer" and substitute "member".

The section as it stands provides that application for a warrant must be made by an officer, which means a superintendent or higher rank. In general, however, an inspector is given the right to apply for a warrant and I am informed that the provision in its present form might lead to considerable difficulties as a superintendent might not be available. Accordingly, I propose that the provision should be brought into line with the usual provisions in matters of this kind. As a justice of the District Court has to be satisfied, before he issues the warrant, that the information is sufficient, the public interest is amply safeguarded.

In this case there is the right to enter by force but without a warrant.

There is no objection to that. That is what I meant by "full authority".

Section 36 is merely supervisory. Section 37 is different.

I move amendment No. 52:—

In lines 3 to 5, to delete "any gaming instrument capable of being used for unlawful gaming or any slot-machine" and substitute "any gaming instrument, being a slot-machine prohibited by Section 9 or a gaming instrument capable of being used for unlawful gaming".

This is a drafting amendment which is made necessary by earlier amendments. It is not a new provision, being merely a re-enactment, in substance, of Section 2 of the Gaming Houses Act, 1854.

I move amendment No. 53:—

Before Section 44 to insert the following new section:—

44. (1) Where an offence against this Act is committed by a body corporate or by a person purporting to act on behalf of a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons and is proved to have been so committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any default on the part of, any person being in the case of a body corporate, a director thereof, or, in the case of an unincorporated body, a member of the committee of management or other controlling authority thereof, that person shall also be guilty of the offence.

(2) Any summons or other document required to be served for the purpose or in the course of proceedings under this section on a body corporate may be served by leaving it at or sending it by registered post to the registered office of that body, or, if there be no such office in the State, by leaving it at, or sending it by registered post to, the body at any place in the State at which it conducts its business.

The object of this is to make provision to deal with offences by companies. The provision is the usual one for this purpose.

In other words, this transfers the same kind of authority over a company or a director as over an individual.

It is to deal with offences by companies.

Because it has been put in as an amendment.

It is the usual provision about companies. It is a question of second thoughts being better than first thoughts.

It is good that you have second thoughts occasionally.

I move amendment No. 54:—

In line 21, and in lines 22 and 23, to delete "or slot-machine".

This is another drafting amendment. I should perhaps mention that it does not mean that a slot-machine may not be forfeited. The position is that, in accordance with drafting changes made earlier, "slot-machine" is now included in Section 4 which relates to unlawful gaming and does not need to be specifically mentioned in Section 45.

I move amendment No. 55:—

In sub-section (2), line 43, to delete "1937" and substitute "1951".

This is a drafting amendment.