Government hands opposition copies of gaming legal notices

Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi yesterday informed the House that during a meeting with the opposition spokesmen Gavin Gulia and Charles Mangion, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech had given them copies of the legal notices which would be issued following the approval from all stages of the Lotteries and Other Games (Amendment) Bill.

Dr Azzopardi was reacting to opposition MP Evarist Bartolo who, speaking during the debate in second reading, said that a legal notice could only be discussed in the House following a resolution and called on the government to consult the opposition.

At the start of the sitting, Jesmond Mugliett (PN) said the gaming culture had been present in Malta for a long time. Public lotto, lotteries, casinos and remote gaming were licensed. Gaming was and is allowed but needed further regulation.

When one sees the number of gaming parlours one tends to forget that as Catholics the Maltese should have a certain morality on gaming, which had ruined many families and consequently led to usury.

The law needed to be consolidated to remove anomalies on how gaming and gaming devices were to be defined. Not everyone was conscious of dangers and abuse in the sector. One of the aims of the Bill was to also ensure fairness with gamblers.

Mr Mugliett said the Bill also aimed to increase monitoring to check abuses. It set restrictions on where and when gaming parlours could be opened. Gaming devices were also to be controlled as was the maximum amount of money won.

Mr Mugliett said that one should not promote a gaming culture in band and sports clubs. He said there was nothing valuable in gaming and called for a review of the law as regards the Maltco lotteries. He also suggested that revenue from gaming should be channelled to conservation projects.

Michael Falzon (PL) said that one should take into consideration the social aspect when discussing the gaming sector where there were abuses and irregularities – a situation created by the PN government which now seemed to try to regulate it.

However, the enabling law, which gave certain powers to the responsible minister, was raw.

Dr Falzon said that ideally there would not be gaming outlets, but banning them completely would drive gambling underground, as a result of which abuses and exploitations would arise.

The gaming sector was there and it should neither be favoured nor destroyed. But it needed to be regulated.

Entry in gaming outlets needed to be controlled through the age of the player and by a register that would contain the player’s particulars.

He was in favour of compulsory gamblers excluding themselves from frequenting the gaming outlets. He suggested that, in certain situations, there should be the facility that interested persons, those who depend on the compulsory gambler, would petition the competent authority to exclude the player from frequenting the outlet. It would be the competent authority which then decides whether to reject or accept the petition.

Dr Falzon said that, with regard to the Good Causes Fund, everyone knew the way in which certain funds were being distributed in certain localities.

Interjecting, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said that the Good Causes Funds were distributed in every locality.

Dr Falzon insisted certain Good Causes Funds’ cheques were always addressed towards certain localities.

Mr Fenech retorted that the Good Causes Funds accounts are presented annually. Dr Falzon could table a parliamentary question as to the localities where funds were spent.

Dr Falzon said that he would be happy to ask, once the government would have the decency to respond to such question.

Noting that Mr Fenech was leaving the Chamber, Labour Party whip Joe Mizzi said that, according to the code of ethics, there was an obligation of a minister to attend to parliamentary sittings.

Mr Fenech said he had other government duties to attend to.

The Speaker ruled that, while the code of ethics required that ministers attend parliamentary sittings and give them their due importance, it also permitted that a minister could be substituted by his or her parliamentary secretary. This had been the custom for a long time.

Dr Galea said the Finance Minister piloting the Bill had already explained that he had other governmental duties.

Mr Mizzi insisted that rules and not custom applied. He added that the minister was not attending to government business but taking part in a television programme.

Continuing, Dr Falzon said that in the case of a revocation of licence, there should be the right of appeal to a separate organ from that which issued the revocation.

The legislation itself should not be vague and enabling but it should contain substance, he said. If the government wanted to reassure society, it should speak clearly what is going to be regulated.

Dr Falzon said that it was not the way to enact such legislation, which was trying to regulate something that until now was left uncontrolled. Otherwise, it would result in debating something that lacked substance, while the actual substance would be implemented through a legal notice.

Concluding, Dr Falzon said that in such legislation, there should be a balance between regulations and the social aspect.

Robert Arrigo (PN) said the Bill presented the minister with a number of difficulties. The House should shoulder such difficulties and unite in proposing the law with one voice.

Mr Arrigo denied allegations of what happened during the PN’s parliamentary group regarding this Bill. He said the group seriously discussed and considered the Bill and its implications.

He augured that the draft Bill must be critically discussed even by the Labour parliamentary group in the hope that the House will be united on such a sensitive law.

Gaming regulations were to focus on the individual as these would address the effects of gaming not only on the player but also on those around him.

He invited the drafters to consider a number of issues: the age limit for gambling ought to be increased to 25 years and outlets are to be bigger than 20 square metres as this would push outlets further out from the village centre.

While agreeing with the proposal to prohibit gaming outlets from serving alcohol, Mr Arrigo said it is not practical to prohibit these outlets from also serving non-alcoholic beverages.

Drafters are also to consider the importance of the online gaming industry for Malta, an industry which employed a large number of people and which generated revenues.

Although online gaming is available round the clock, gaming outlets ought to be open only from 1 p.m. to 1 a.m., as this will limit access by housewives.

He said gaming still took place whether illegally or at other types of licensed places. Therefore the closure of outlets was not sufficient.

He commended the discussions already undertaken with Sedqa and other stakeholders but suggested that feedback from operators of such outlets ought also to take place.

Mr Arrigo welcomed the introduction of a central system for gaming machines and this ought to take effect as of the first day. However, a licence for 12 months was too short to attract serious investors. He proposed that the licence was to be given for a longer term with the authority retaining its discretion to suspend that licence where conditions are not respected.

He praised the introduction of reciprocal barring and CCTV monitoring but warned that the law must establish a level playing field. Amusement machines are to pay out a minimum of 90 per cent ratio without having a maximum win. He noted that there is no maximum win in the Super 5 lottery and therefore the introduction of a maximum win would not retain a level playing field.

Also taking part in the debate were Evarist Bartolo (PL), Franco Debono (PN) and David Agius (PN). Their speeches will be reported tomorrow.