Call for social impact report on gaming

Opposition spokesman on economic development and financial services Charles Mangion called on the government to lay on the Table of the House any analysis of social impact and scope of gaming, if this had indeed been carried out, together with the reactions of those to be affected. Such a report would have made for a good basis for discussion.

Dr Mangion recalled that in 2009, when an administrative measure was taken to close down gaming parlours, there had been a full discussion in and outside the House, and finally the law and regulations tabled were discussed with guidelines on how to apply the rules. But today’s amendments were being presented as a Bill without any indication of what they were intended to do, or if an evaluation of their social impact had been made.

A few weeks ago, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said that any Bill involving businesses would be accompanied by an analysis of its effects. Why was this Bill not accompanied by such an analysis?

If gaming was not regulated it would go underground, with the resultant negative effects on society. The opposition agreed that the sector should be regulated, with an authority supervising against abuse, not allowing criminality to prevail and thus providing important revenue from the sector.

The better and more effective the regulation, the greater would be the benefit to society, because the propensity for gaming would always impact on the family. The opposition wanted an open economy.

Where e-gaming was concerned everybody could recognise that the base operating out of Malta was an economic experiment that had succeeded, leaving some €50 million annually in revenue without the burden of new taxes. This also provided employment for a good number of people, and although most of them were foreigners, this constituted a challenge, that with better education, more jobs could be created for the Maltese.

In e-gaming sector Malta was registering a gross added-value per hour of almost €36, the second highest in the EU. Although salaries in the sector were higher, the percentage of the added-value that went into them was some 10 per cent. This element made the sector competitive with other elements, for a potential for further development.

One must also be conscious of the volatility of the investment by local operators. Other countries, especially the EU’s newer Eastern member states and those geographically close, were competing keenly to attract this type of investment. There were other countries that did not like to see capital flowing out for gambling.

The government must be very aware of what was happening, where the competition was coming from, and where efforts were being made to close down the sector. The aim should be to continue to strengthen the remote gaming sector so that whoever sought to operate out of Malta would know that they could compete effectively and efficiently. The gaming authority’s role was to be more proactive.

This was important even because of the two-speed development of the economy. It was disquieting that any move or blow, for whatever international reason, could harm other sectors of the economy such as tourism. The imbalance among the various sectors of the economy was not helping to achieve the average EU per capita and maybe even go further. Malta’s share of total world output had not increased in the last 10 years.

Along with the success story of gaming Malta had financial intermediation, which was also seeing developments. The question that must be asked for the next 10 years will be whether the sector imbalance was continuing to grow or whether Malta must give a special impetus.

Gaming needed a lot of skilled workers, but 70 per cent of Maltese employees were unskilled and academically unfit. Until this was corrected Malta could not improve its manufacturing sector, for example.

If the opposition was critical it was not because it was against the gaming sector, but because that sector also had a social element. Winding up the debate of two years ago, the minister himself had said that the sector was socially sensitive and the government must heed the social aspects.

Dr Mangion asked what had become of the fund set up two years ago to help responsible gaming: how much money it had amassed and what had been done with it. It appeared that the fund had not been very active, especially in education. Where had the principles of sensitivity of two years ago gone?

He agreed with the Bill’s proposals for higher penalties to limit abuse.

The Bill was also proposing to empower the authority to license aircraft and cruise liners registered in Malta to operate casinos in Maltese territorial waters, but there was nothing to say where a ship was prohibited from carrying on such activities while berthed here.

Another problem was that the proposal did not specifically mention cruise liners but simply vessels, a word that included large yachts, boats and any other description used in navigation.

The opposition could not agree with an open ticket. It must be pointed out that casino activities could not be carried out in Maltese territorial waters.

If the principles of sensitivity of two years ago did not continue to apply, these proposals could become tools for money laundering.

The debate continues.