asked the Minister for Finance the number of gaming licences currently issued for the Dublin city area; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Gaming Licences.
8.
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that only one gaming licence with an expiry date later than today had been issued by them in relation to premises with a Dublin city address. In addition approximately 60 licences with a Dublin city address were regarded as continuing in force by the Revenue Commissioners by virtue of section 18 (3) of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. That subsection provides that, where a District Court refuses to issue to an appellant a certificate authorising the issue of a gaming licence, any subsisting licence held by the appellant shall continue in force pending the resolution of any appeal in respect of that refusal.
The implications of the Supreme Court's judgment yesterday on a case stated by the Circuit Court in the matter of an application for a certificate are at present being studied.
Will the Minister explain the circumstances in which the Revenue Commissioners could have issued even one gaming licence with an expiry date after today in view of the resolution of Dublin City Council in January 1986 to revoke Part III of the Act? If the Minister does not have this information, will be direct that an inquiry be held, because it was in total disregard of the resolution of the city council and outside the powers of the Revenue Commissioners? Am I correct in believing that the 60 licences continuing in force were issued for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985? In the clear and unambiguous terms of the resolution of the Dublin City Council in January 1986, the licences could not have been open to continuation which is, in effect, what Mr. Justice Griffin said in the Supreme Court yesterday. He made it clear that when the resolution was passed anything that referred to previous years could not be the subject matter of litigation.
May I please dissuade the Deputy from making a statement or proceeding by way of a series of questions?
The last part of my tortuous query is to ask the Minister if he agrees that the Supreme Court's judgement yesterday was no more than a clarification of what must have been abundantly clear to anyone in authority and concerned with this legislation?
I am advised that in relation to the one licence it was a mistake by the court but, once the court had issued the licence, the Revenue were obliged to comply with it. The Deputy asked about the other 60 licences, I do not know the years for which they were issued but I assume it was prior to 27 January 1986. The Supreme Court judgment was delivered yesterday and nobody in the Department of Finance or Justice would have received it yet. When it comes to hand it will be carefully studied.
In view of the concern of all elected representatives in the city area, will the Minister issue a memo to employees in the Revenue Commissioners to be diligent in the extreme so that no mistakes will be made in future at court or any other level? They should also be instructed that if they receive notification of the issue of a certificate they should query it so that no further mistakes are made?
I hope that will be the case but it is primarily a matter for the Department of Justice. I am sure when they examine the court judgment the necessary and appropriate action will be taken.