Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jan 1975

Vol. 277 No. 2

Financial Resolutions. - Financial Resolution No. 7: Excise—Gaming Licences.

I move:

(1) That this Resolution applies to gaming licences issued under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 (No. 2 of 1956).

(2) That in lieu of the excise duty imposed by section 17 of the Finance Act, 1956 (No. 22 of 1956), on gaming licences to which this Resolution applies there shall be charged, levied and paid on such licences issued on or after the 16th day of January, 1975, an excise duty at the following rates, that is to say:—

where the period for which the licence is to be issued, as specified in the certificate under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, authorising the issue of the licence—

(a) does not exceed three months, twenty-five pounds;

(b) exceeds three months but does not exceed six months, fifty pounds;

(c) exceeds six months but does not exceed nine months; seventy-five pounds;

(d) exceeds nine months, one hundred pounds.

(3) It is hereby declared that it is expendient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

The effect of this resolution is to increase the excise duty chargeable on the issue of gaming licences under section 19 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, by £60 a year and by a proportionate amount where a licence is issued for a shorter period. The resultant increase in revenue will amount to approximately £3,500 in the current financial year. The Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, provides that, with some exceptions, gaming is permissible only in amusement halls and fun fairs in respect of which the proprietor is the holder of a licence issued by the Revenue Commissioners. Gaming is defined in the Act as playing a game, whether of skill or chance, or partly of skill or chance, for stakes hazarded by the players.

I should have liked to hear the Minister or the Taoiseach say a little more about this. An addition of £50 per slot machine on licensed premises is a very heavy imposition. Contrary to what Deputy Coogan might be thinking, it is not for the purpose of prohibiting their use; it is for the purpose of getting revenue. I should like to ask the Taoiseach are these machines legal on licensed premises in any event? And, if they are, is there a limit to the amount they pay out, or is it proposed now to increase that limit?

We had a lot of controversy here in respect of an amendment to the Gaming Act. Many people felt that the use of such machines should be prohibited completely. As Deputies know, they are used mostly at seaside resorts as part of people's recreation and amusement. I do not know whether we are going to leave anything that is amusing or pleasant free at all. Most people will say that the more there is imposed on these the better, but they are thinking along the lines of people who feel that the taxing of spirits is likely to stamp out drinking. The Minister has no such intention in mind. He is hoping they will be used more so that he will get more revenue. I feel this is putting them into the category of big business—what is popularly known as the one-armed bandit into which children put pennies and then operate them to see how many pennies they will get out. I am not too sure that interference with them is so acceptable.

Deputy Brennan is right; there was a good deal of discussion on this when the 1956 Bill went through. Since that Act was passed gaming licences applied to premises have operated under that Act. The position is that licences are not required, under certain conditions, for gaming carried on at some events —for example, circuses, travelling shows, carnivals, bazaars, sporting meetings and so on. A feature of that exemption is that gaming must not be the main feature of the event. Applicants for gaming licences only apply, in the first instance, to the District Court. When the court grants a licence it may attach a condition thereto—for example, the hours within which the hall or premises remains open and the hours within which gaming may be carried on. Also it can include conditions about the maximum amount of stakes or of prizes. The court can also specify the time for which the licence is to run. Upon payment of the excise duty, the Revenue Commissioners are required to issue a gaming licence to the holder of the certificate, subject to the conditions attached thereto.

This resolution proposes to increase the duty applicable to such licences. I should say that the number of licences issued has been fairly constant. It was 53 in 1970; it went up to 62 in 1971; and, last year, 67 licences were issued. The net receipts in 1974 were approximately £2,300.

There is a slight increase in the number of licences granted, but there is one aspect of this that concerns me. As one who comes from a county in which there are a number of seaside resorts, I fear that this business is to be the exclusive right of the wealthy people and that the small man with the little show at the seaside who has only a few machines will be put out of business. I am not recommending that we vote against the resolution but I do not like it any more than I like any one of the other budgetary proposals.

Can the Taoiseach say if the £50 per slot machine will be on new machines or on secondhand ones and is it to be £50 per machine per annum? Many of these machines are used only for about six weeks during the summer period. Are people who have machines in licensed saddled with a charge of £50 on each machine, whether new or secondhand?

The £50 will be on the machines and the amount in respect of the business varies.

There is to be a new excise duty of £50 per slot machine in use on licensed premises.

The amount of the premises licence is to be increased depending on the length of time for which it is issued. The position is that where the period for which the licence is to be used does not exceed three months, the duty is to be £25; where it exceeds three months but does not exceed six months, the duty is to be £50; where it exceeds six months but does not exceed nine months, the duty is to be £75; and where it exceeds nine months, £100.

What I am asking is whether the £50 excise duty on a slot machine in a licensed premises is a per annum charge or whether there is a reduction for shorter periods in the same way as has been outlined in relation to the licences.

I understand it is to be per annum with reductions for shorter periods.

Is it to be the same as the Taoiseach has outlined in relation to the fee for licences?

I think so.

Is the Taoiseach saying "Yes"?

Can the Taoiseach say whether the £50 would have to be paid in respect of every machine in a premises? If this is the case it would mean that a person having, say, 30 machines, would have to pay 30 times £50. Does this provision apply only to slot machines and not to any other form of lottery?

It applies to machines in premises licensed under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956.

Therefore a person with 30 machines would have to pay 30 times £50.

Can the Taoiseach say why this tax, of which, incidentally, I approve thoroughly, is confined to slot machines in licensed premises? By that I do not mean public houses but premises licensed for the purpose of the Gaming Acts. These premises are already under a certain amount of supervision and normally the stakes played for are very small. The country is full of slot machines where the stakes played for are rather high. I am thinking of machines in golf clubs and such places and, in some instances, in public houses. Surely it would be desirable to cover those also. These are machines which take a stake of 10p and, consequently are far more dangerous from the public's point of view than are those in the licensed premises which are operated by, perhaps, 1p or 2p.

It is intended to deal with that separately. The provision here applies only to machines in premises licensed under the Gaming and Lotteries Act.

Legislation is required before this provision can be implemented.

This Financial Resolution does not apply at all to slot machines but only to gaming licences. The Minister referred to a proposal to impose a tax of £50 on each machine but only on those machines in licensed premises, that is licensed for the purpose of the Gaming Acts. The point I am trying to make is that the machines in respect of which it would be much more desirable and equitable to impose a tax are those which are not on premises licensed for the purpose of the Gaming Acts.

This will take immediate effect and the other matter will be dealt with in the Finance Bill.

Deputy Brennan referred to his coming from an area where there are many one-arm bandits. I come from what must be the greatest one-arm bandit area in the country but I can assure the Deputy that we have much greater attractions than that to offer our visitors. Parents condemn these machines. We have something else to offer our children.

They have the Deputy.

He is their two-armed bandit.

I note that Deputy Molloy is not defending the friend who helped to have him elected.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please.

The Deputy was very glad to get a job for his son in Claude's Casino. Fintan Junior was glad to get a few bob pocket money.

Is it not well known that Deputy Coogan's policy is to electrocute itinerants in Eyre Square?

Is that one of his tourist attractions?

I should like the Taoiseach to tell us whether the purpose of this provision is to bring in revenue or whether it is to stamp out the use of these machines as would seem to be suggested by Deputy Coogan?

We have a lot more than slot machines to offer our tourists.

The Deputy voted for the contraceptive slot machines.

The Deputies' interruptions are leading to disorder.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn