David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for tabling the amendments. My response is similar to responses I have given to representatives of a private members' club on the text submitted.

I wish to provide some background. Early in the debate on the Bill, I made the point repeatedly that the existence of such clubs arises on foot of constitutional protection. Members' clubs are not governed by the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 or by this Bill. Thus, according to the advice of the Office of Attorney General, there is no need to accept amendment No. 2. I am told it would risk confusion and perhaps invite legal challenge. To the best of my knowledge, many of these establishments are not member-driven clubs in the same way as normal sports clubs. The membership is frequently not a stable feature and may vary considerably from night to night. I will outline some of the questions that could be asked. Who on the committee would be legally responsible for ensuring payment of any taxes to the Revenue Commissioners? Who would ensure adherence to any money laundering laws? Who would ensure that visitors to the premises do not engage in excessive gambling? Who on the committee would direct a sharing of any surplus made by the club between all members? Who might share the losses?

Many of these establishments hold themselves out to be casinos. I am not in favour of any measure that would facilitate casino operations by the back door. If we went down that road at this time, these establishments would not be subject to any licensing or regulatory constraints. I also fear that gaming arcades operating in areas where no local authority resolution is in place under the 1956 Act might be tempted to avail of the proposed exemption with the attendant negative impacts I have already outlined. I fully intend to address the issue of licensing and regulation of casinos in the context of the major reform work under way. I contend that is the appropriate place to deal with the matter. At that time, clubs would have the option to apply for a casino licence under regulation and so on.

I wish to make two other points. Amendment No. 1 proposes governing by committee. That is all; it goes no further. We are of the view that neither amendment is needed. Both amendments could open up all manner of unintended consequences. As matters stand, there is constitutional protection for private members' clubs. That is what they call themselves and that is what they are. The advice is not to accept or support the amendments at this time.