Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, I welcome the discussion on the amendments I have put forward. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to the Chamber this evening. I further welcome what Senator Paul Gavan has said in particular as well as what other members have said in respect of the principle of this legislation and the amendments I have tabled.

The Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 provided that a one-arm-bandit-casino-type operation could not be run unless the local authority in the area said so. It gave local authorities the right to say that, in respect of all or parts of their local authority functional area, a resolution could permit it to happen. That is what I said about Bray and Bundoran and the like. It was said these areas are holiday resorts where people go on holidays. They do not spend their whole life there. They enjoy an evening on the one-arm bandits, and it is not socially damaging or an exploitation of an entire section of the community. Those decisions were made. The Minister of State has said there were uneven results throughout the country. Yes, there were. Bray operated dodgems and one-arm bandits, which was fine. It did not mean Rathnew had to have them as well.

In those days, as has been pointed out, the urban district councils existed which had a much narrower focus. The Minister of State said the urban district council in Enniscorthy said no to any gambling casinos in its area. The funny thing is that the reasoning the Minister of State has just advanced was put before, I think slightly misguided, District Court judges to the effect that because Enniscorthy district council ceased to exist, the ban in that area ceased to operate. That is not the case because the fundamental question, if it did cease to exist, is whether Wexford County Council had passed a resolution which authorised one-arm bandits to be operated either in Enniscorthy or in other places such as Rosslare or wherever else it might be in its area.

I listened carefully to the Minister of State, who suggested that the right of local authorities to refuse or to permit gambling operations in a specific area only and not in another area was unevenly applied. It was not unevenly applied. The entire city of Dublin said "No". People were told it was all over, to take their machines and get out. There was a huge row about it at the time. People said they had employees in amusement halls on O’Connell Street and the like. It was challenged in court. They said they had been there for 20 years and suddenly a group of councillors were telling them it is all over and that nowhere in Dublin would this be permitted. There was nothing uneven or unsatisfactory about that.

The problem arose, however, because money started to talk afterwards. Two things happened. The Revenue Commissioners, without looking at the 1956 Act, started issuing permits, a small disc, which had to be stuck on to each machine saying the duty had been paid on the machine. Unscrupulous lawyers then went before District Court judges to say these are licensed machines. An Garda Síochána did not stand up against them to say they could not be operated, whether they had 1,000 Revenue stickers on them or not, because this was an area in which it could not happen. Money spoke and money has been speaking since. More and more money has been poured into more and more premises in the city of Dublin establishing this emporium or that casino right across the city. No one has ever stood up for the 1956 Act to say that none of this is lawful, except for one or two occasions of which I am aware in which An Garda Síochána attempted to enforce confiscation of machines. I do not know what happened to those efforts.

Can anyone say that there is something in principle wrong with the members of a local authority saying to this gambling authority that by all means it can license gambling but not in its area or not in Ballyfermot, Coolock or wherever, and that it may put it in some other place, like Bray or wherever else?It is glib of the Minister of State to say it had patchy results. It did not have patchy results until people deliberately started to ignore the law. It did not have patchy results when the casinos on O'Connell Street were closed. It had patchy results when they reopened and money talked. I do not know how money talks but I know there is enormous money in this. It has found its way into the processes of Government in the sense that the power of these people to operate elaborate premises in Dublin without any lawful authority has been shown in practice.

The Minister of State said that instead of this, he is introducing something that is, unfortunately, entirely diluted. Section 96 states, "Where section 95 applies, the [gambling] Authority shall, subject to subsection (2), determine whether a premises where it is proposed to provide a gambling activity is suitable for use for that activity". It is about the suitability of the premises and requires us to consider if a premises is well constructed. Let us go on to examine what is in section 96. The assessment of suitability is undertaken having regard to "the information and documentation furnished under section 95", and I will come back to that. The section also requires having regard to "whether the premises concerned communicates internally with other premises in which a gambling activity is not being provided". So what? A one-purpose casino is not affected by that provision. There is also reference to "the existence, in the vicinity of the premises, of other premises in respect of which an in-person gambling licence is attached". If there is nowhere in the vicinity, that ground does not arise. Also required to be considered is "the proximity of the premises to schools". For heaven's sake. Let us consider the quays or O'Connell Street in Dublin. Are we worried about Belvedere College? This is nonsense. It is not going to work. The authority is not going to state that there is a school on Parnell Square or wherever else and an applicant cannot have a casino near a school. Where in any city is far from a school? Practically speaking, nowhere is far from a school.

The question we must ask is whether this is an enabling piece of legislation. If we look at the criteria which are established for the approval of premises under section 96 of the Bill, anybody who puts a good deal of money into a single-purpose premises that is not next door to a school and where there is no immediate competition in the street or in the vicinity will get a green light as regards the suitability of the premises. That is what this is providing for. It is enabling. The section asks if a premises is suitable, whether it communicates with any other premises and whether it does this, that and the other. If not, it will be considered clearly suitable. That is the policy set out in the section.

Let us look back at section 95, which is a precondition for the operation of section 96. Section 95 states that when you are applying for gambling activity in person, you have to provide documentation identifying the location of the premises on a map, documentary evidence that the proposed licensee is the beneficial owner or occupier of the premises and details of the layout of the premises, including all entry and exit points; the lighting to be provided on the premises; the size and location of the proposed area where gambling is to be conducted and the position of equipment, including games machines or tables, to be used in the premises; the security systems in place, including closed-circuit TV, for both internal and external security; non-gambling areas and features to separate and distinguish such areas from areas where gambling activity will be conducted; and the size and location of external space, signs and lighting. That is effectively a checklist of things and if applicants comply with them, they will get a permit. That is what we are dealing with. We should not cod ourselves. The section does not state that an emporium on the quays or on O'Connell Street is going to be deemed unsuitable anymore. The legislation does not state that. It is codding ourselves to believe that local authorities did not operate their power effectively when they did. It is also codding ourselves to say that sections 95 and 96 are going to restrict very big investors who have put in a lot of money to hire architects and engineers. They will have the lighting and the CCTV. They will have everything right and will make sure there is no school on the same street and whatever else is required. In such circumstances, they will get their premises. One of the grounds is that there is nowhere else in the vicinity. All you have to do is to find virgin space and you are home and dried and your application will succeed. That is what we are dealing with.

I will go back to Enniscorthy, which was mentioned by the Minister of State. What was wrong with the people of Enniscorthy being able to call for no gambling in their town? How was it that somebody came into that town and saw an opportunity even though under the Gaming and Lotteries Act there was no resolution for Enniscorthy? That person opened a premises. How did that person persuade the local district court to allow that to happen? How did whoever ran the premises for the first time get the Revenue Commissioners to issue stamps to put on all the machines? What good was done for the people of Enniscorthy? I can get as passionate as Senator Cassells. I ask the Minister of State what good was done for the people of Enniscorthy when the law of the land was torn up and the premises to which he has referred opened. Is it serving a social need? Is it improving the lives of the people of Enniscorthy? Is it giving them good choices to use their money in a way that pleases them? Is the premises acting as a parasite on those people and exploiting quasi-addictive behaviour? The same people would go into the casino on dole day or children's allowance day to fritter away their money and hand it over to the proprietor of that institution. Has Wexford County Council adopted a resolution under the present Act to state that anywhere in the county is suitable for the operation of casinos? I very much doubt it has. How, therefore, is it lawful that this example has taken place? How has it, in practical terms, become lawful on O'Connell Street and the quays, in Phibsborough, on Dorset Street and elsewhere in Dublin? All of the working-class suburbs are now festooned with these establishments. They are not in Foxrock, Donnybrook or Ballsbridge. They are in areas where there is access to easy money from people who are at the lower end of the social and economic ladder and who can be exploited with the greatest ease. That is what is happening.

I listened carefully to what the Minister of State said as the reasons why not. Let us remember that the argument is as follows. I want to say one more thing before I move to that. Local authorities have at the moment the power to say "Yea" or "Nay" under Part 3 of this Act. That is the law at the moment. As far as I am concerned, there are enormous parts of the country where these places are being operated and there is no resolution in being. They are, in other words, being operated in breach of the law and in breach of what this House and the other House have established for half a century and more as a basic requirement, which is that the people of the local area have the right to determine whether or not they will allow these premises in all or in part of their areas. That is the status quo. To say it has been run patchily or inconsistently is simply not true.I challenge the Minister of State to tell me if Wexford has adopted a resolution for the entire county, which includes Enniscorthy. I would gamble a few bob that it has not.