Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I accept that I strayed.

Local authorities were never given the function under the Gaming and Lotteries Act of policing this. They could not send down some lad from the council head office to say there is something wrong here. The only people who were given a function to police this were the police. To lay blame at the feet of local authorities is wrong. The only function local authorities had was to say yea or nay, it can or cannot happen in all or part of our local authority area. They were given this one-off right to say it is either totally illegal or it is not totally illegal for somebody to apply for an amusement hall licence in our area. To lay responsibility at the feet of local authority members or local authorities in general for what has happened in Enniscorthy just does not stand up as an argument. To take away a veto from local authorities over what does and does not happen in their area is a retrograde step.Iappeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. What harm would it do if Dublin City Council or Wexford County Council said that is all very well but they can only run these places in Rosslare Strand and Gorey or wherever and they are the only areas they will accept it? What harm could it do to leave that as part of our law? It is not a divided responsibility. It is giving local communities the right to say yes or no to the general availability of these premises. Sections 95 and 96 are no answer to the point I have raised. They are purely a vetting operation. Why consult with local authorities? What can the local authority do? Who does the authority consult with, by the way? Does it go to the county manager or chief executive officer, or does it have to go to the members of the local authority to discuss, for example, Mr. McDowell's plan to run a casino on Main Street, Enniscorthy? Is it seriously to be the case that the duty to consult involves a duty to talk to the members of the local authority and to find out what their wishes are and to respect those wishes? No, it certainly does not. Therefore, this is a retrograde step.

Much of this legislation is good but one thing is certain. The Government will not close down the emporia all over Dublin under this legislation. There will not be less of them; there will be more of them. The criteria under which licences will be granted will be expansive and not in any sense constrained. There will be more and more casinos because a shopping list of criteria has been set out in sections 95 and 96 that people will say they satisfy. They will say there is no school beside it and they have invested a lot of money in this proposal, so please give them the licence. Otherwise, they will be down to the Four Courts to dispute any refusal of a licence from the authority. The authority will ask on what grounds could they say that the members of the local authority were not keen on this or were divided on this. A majority might have said "Yes" while the minority said "No". Let us suppose that is the ground on which they have chosen to say "No", having consulted the local authority. If it was my casino, I would be down to the Four Courts in double-quick time to get a judicial review and to say it is not a relevant consideration for refusing my premises as a casino.

This is an enabling Bill as far as gambling and casinos are concerned. The Government will not reduce the number. It will increase if something is not done to give local authorities the right to say "No".