'St Ġorġ Preca's former home turned into gaming parlour'

Eyebrows were raised in Parliament yesterday when opposition finance spokesman Charles Mangion revealed that even the house in Ħamrun where St Ġorġ Preca, Malta's first and only saint, used to live had been turned into a gaming parlour.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Lotteries and Other Games (Amendment) Bill, Dr Mangion was emphasising the point that such gambling outlets had mushroomed even in the hearts of towns and villages.

He criticised the government for having refused to regulate the gaming sector for so long when the gaming authority had drafted its regulations long ago. He accused the government of refusing to introduce these regulations for electoral exigencies.

The gaming outlets had flourished under the trading regulations with no one in government wanting to take responsibility. It was here that Dr Mangion mentioned that St Ġorġ Preca's former residence had been turned into a gaming parlour. He said that the Casino legislation, enacted by a Labour government in 1979, established regulations which could have been applied to gaming outlets. He said that under this Act, the Casino contributed regularly to government revenue.

The existing legislation gave the government the authority to enforce it. But the government had abdicated its responsibility and allowed illegal gambling outlets to operate, encouraging people to invest. It was ironic that the government was now condemning these actions.

The existing legislation, as amended in 2002, distinguished between gambling and amusement machines, but still the government had failed to regulate.

Dr Mangion mentioned the fiscal aspect, adding that when one calculated that there were between 10,000 and 15,000 gambling machines on the islands, the government was losing between €7 and €10 million in annual revenue. This was administrative irresponsibility and negligence.

The government failed to mention what the tax imposed on takings would be. He agreed with the MGA that was insisting on a level playing field as that applying to casinos. These gaming parlours were performing a similar activity and one had to ensure fair competition. Bona fide operators also had to know what the rate of tax was going to be.

Dr Mangion said that the minister had failed to mention the bond that had to be guaranteed for responsible gaming. One did not know how the fund was to be used, whether it would give assistance to gambling victims or whether it would be used for education and information purposes. One had to be socially committed to make people aware of irresponsible gambling.

Regulations and criteria had to be objectively and uniformly applied. These regulations did not form part of the Bill, and Dr Mangion complained that the opposition had not been given a copy of these regulations.

Concluding that it was important to discourage gambling, he remarked that although the law gave the government the tool to regulate, it had allowed this illegal sector to flourish over the years.