asked the Minister for Justice if he considers that the Gaming Lotteries Acts, 1956 to 1979, should be amended and if he has any proposals in that regard.

Various proposals for the amendment of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts have been made to me by interested parties and, while I am considering all such proposals, I cannot say what recommendations, if any, I will be making to the Government in the matter.

When will the Minister decide if he is making proposals to the Government?

I am at present considering proposals that have been submitted to me from interested bodies and, as soon as they are considered, I will be in a position to advise the Government on the best course of action. I am not as confident of this as I was in my previous reply to Deputy O'Keeffe, but I hope to make proposals to the Government before Christmas.

Would the Minister consider removing one of the most ridiculous anomalies, that is, the £500 limit which is being flouted by many people and which in many ways is making the law an ass. Would he consider introducing a short amending Bill, similar to that introduced to deal with slot machines and getting it through quickly?

That and other suggestions have been made. This is one of the suggestions I am considering, rather than having a complete review of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts which could be used as an occasion for opening many doors which many of us might not want or welcome. This is one of the avenues I will consider when making my suggestions to the Government.

Do the proposals in relation to the amendment of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts include any proposal to bring the operation of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes within the ambit of the Acts and would he consider such a proposal?

The Deputy is widening the scope of the question.

Is the Minister aware that some provincial papers are barred from advertising such things as bingo, draws and so on?

I am not so aware.

Does the Minister not agree that a law that is not applied equally is not a just law?

There is general acceptance that the 1956 Act needs to be revised for a number of reasons. There is merit in Deputy O'Keeffe's suggestion and that would cover one aspect, but there are two or three others. That would be a way of getting out of the immediate problems.