Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I think the Ceann Comhairle for giving more than a little latitude here because it is a very complicated Bill and we are dealing with a very broad spectrum of amendments from the Seanad, many of which relate to issues that were touched upon here and are probably not strictly proper to be dealt with.

The first issue I intended to raise was on casinos and private members' clubs and the Minister of State has answered that very clearly.

The second question I wish to raise is related to that. As I understand it, the 1956 Act outlawed certain types of gambling in a casino in a roundabout way in that under the definition in the 1956 Act, there had to be an equal opportunity for all players. In other words, the house could not have an edge or an advantage in any gambling game. For example, in roulette, the number zero is on the wheel but is not on the table for people to gamble on it. Zero is neither red nor black. It is neither odd nor even. The house, therefore, has an advantage because that number cannot come up. With numbers one to 36 on the wheel, the actual advantage is of 2.7%. That is unlawful under the current definition. The wording of the definition the Minister of State is now proposing in section 137 is different. It provides that "where the participants in a game include the licensee of the licence concerned, the chance that the licensee has as a participant of winning the game and the chance that all other participants in the game have of winning the game, are equal." That is the definition that the Minister of State is now inserting. The new rule is similar to the old one in many respects but is different in wording. Again, I seek clarification from the Minister of State. Perhaps his officials might look at that. Can he explain if the current definition is being replaced with these new words in order to mean something different or is it the same intention, where the same rule is to apply under this different wording? I will not go into the specifics of this but the issue is that there is not an edge or an advantage to the house in gambling, and that all participants, including the house as a participant, has an equal chance of winning. Is that the net intention of these words?

See this speech in context