I move amendment No. 34:
In page 56, to delete lines 27 to 38, and in page 57, to delete lines 1 to 8.
Gambling Regulation Bill 2022: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage
Debate resumed on amendment No. 33:
In page 56, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“Prohibition of advertising
67. (1) A person shall not advertise gambling, or cause gambling to be advertised.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.”.
- (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin)
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 58, to delete lines 35 to 38, and in page 59, to delete lines 1 to 22 and substitute the following:
“Cheating at relevant gambling activity
73. (1) A person who cheats at a relevant gambling activity is guilty of an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or both.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether the person who cheats—
(a) makes a gain, or
(b) improves his or her chances of making a gain.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person cheats where he or she interferes with or manipulates—
(a) the process by which a relevant gambling activity is provided,
(b) a relevant gambling product or relevant gambling related service being used for a relevant gambling activity,
(c) an event to which a relevant gambling activity relates, or
(d) the outcome of a relevant gambling activity.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 to 41, inclusive, are related and can be taken together.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 59, lines 28 to 32, to delete all words from and including “(1) Where” in line 28 down to and including line 32 and substitute the following:
“(1) Where the Authority has reasonable grounds for believing that a person (in this section referred to as a “relevant person”) is providing a gambling activity in contravention of Chapter 1 or is advertising a gambling activity (in this section referred to as a “prohibited gambling activity”), the Authority may apply to the Court for either or both of the following:
(a) an order directing the relevant person to cease the prohibited gambling activity;”.
Deputies will recall on Committee Stage of the Bill that I signalled my intention to amend and clarify the provisions of the Bill governing advertising gambling activities. This is the first substantive amendment to that effect. Section 74 of the Bill provides the authority with robust powers by way of application for court orders to address persons providing gambling activities in contravention or breach of Chapter 1 of this Part, namely, where a person operates without an appropriate gambling licence.
The various court orders provided for in this section include blocking Internet service provision of a prohibited gambling activity; blocking financial payments to unlicensed operators; blocking the disposal of assets by such an unlicensed operator or reducing assets below a certain level; and compelling the surrender of any gambling products used in the provision of a prohibited gambling service. These provisions are a key element of the authority's regulatory armoury and seek to ensure there is an efficient methodology for addressing activity by unlicensed gambling operators.
As I have previously stated, two of the key objectives of the Bill are to ensure that people are protected when they choose to gamble and that licensees are reassured that they can operate in a properly regulated environment. Both these objectives relate to addressing the issue of unlicensed or black market operators. The section as currently drafted allows the authority to seek a coherent order to block access to gambling activities where they are provided by unlicensed operators. It does not, however, address an unlicensed operator advertising gambling in the State. This matter needs to be addressed to protect people participating in gambling by ensuring they interact with a properly licensed and regulated operator rather than potentially with a black market operator.
The purpose of this group of amendments, Nos. 36 and 38 to 41, inclusive, is to provide that where an unlicensed operator is advertising unlicensed gambling activities, from either inside or outside the State, the authority may seek orders compelling the unlicensed person to stop providing those activities and services or to block any advertising of such activities or services.
As I have already told the House, these amendments are crucial in protecting people from gambling with black market and unlicensed operators and ensuring that people participating in gambling are protected by the new authority.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 59, line 35, to delete “provider of an application store service” and substitute “provider of an online application store service”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 59, lines 36 and 37, to delete “block access to a prohibited gambling activity provided by a relevant person” and substitute “block access to the prohibited gambling activity concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 60, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following:
“(3) On the hearing of an application under subsection (1), the Court may, where it is satisfied that the relevant person concerned is engaged in a prohibited gambling activity, make an order directing the relevant person to cease the prohibited gambling activity concerned.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 61, lines 36 and 37, to delete “is no longer providing a prohibited gambling activity.” and substitute “is no longer engaged in a prohibited gambling activity.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 62, lines 9 and 10, to delete “prohibited gambling activity being provided.” and substitute “prohibited gambling activity being engaged in.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 62, to delete lines 11 to 13 and substitute the following:
“(15) In this section—
“bank” means—
(a) a regulated financial service provider, or
(b) a bank outside the State;
“Court” means the High Court.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are related and can be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 63, to delete lines 28 to 30.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are technical amendments, including following observations received from the Office of the DPP.
Amendment No. 43 deletes subsection (5), which relates to a certificate purporting to be signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, whereas the only certificates mentioned elsewhere in the section relate to certificates as to nationality, to be signed by an officer of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and statements as to the conduct, to be signed by a lawyer.
Amendment No. 44 removes the reference to subsection (5) from subsection (6).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 63, line 31, to delete “subsection (3), (4) or (5)” and substitute “subsection (3) or (4)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 64, to delete lines 33 to 36 and substitute the following:
“(2) Where the court is of the view that, having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (1), the offence is sufficiently serious, it may, in addition to suspending or revoking the gambling licence referred to in that subsection, suspend for a specified period or revoke any other gambling licence held by the licensee.”.
On review of section 80(2), it was noted that there could be some ambiguity attached to it. It had been redrafted in amendment No. 45, so explicitly allowing for the possibility of suspension or revocation of any of the gambling licences held via licence, having regard to the nature of an offence committed and circumstances of the offence. Some licensees might hold several gambling licences. This section aims to ensure that a licensee who has committed a serious offence cannot seek to avoid punishment by shifting activity between his or her various licences.
Amendment No. 46 extends the provision that suspension or revocation of a licence under subsection (1) to apply to subsection (2) as well, that is, that such suspensions or revocations do not commence until any appeals against them are resolved.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 64, line 37, to delete “An order under subsection (1) shall not take effect” and substitute “An order under subsection (1) and, where applicable, a suspension or revocation under subsection (2), shall not take effect”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are related.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 66, to delete lines 7 to 9 and substitute the following:
“(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Authority may, with the consent of the Minister, by regulations vary the amount of a maximum relevant payment specified in column (2) of Schedule 2 or the amount of maximum winnings specified in column (3) of that Schedule, or both, having regard to—”.
Section 82(2) of the Bill, as published and amended on Committee Stage, provides that the authority may, with the consent of the Minister for Justice, vary the maximum payment or winning limits in Schedule 2 to the Bill, having regard to the number of policies and principles. I now propose two technical amendments to this section.
The first, amendment No. 47, will make subsection (2) subject to a newly inserted subsection (3).
The second, amendment No. 48, will insert new subsections (3) and (4) into section 82. The new subsection (3) clarifies that where an authority varies any limits under Schedule 2 to the Bill, those variations will not apply to any gambling activities already under way when the variation takes effect. In summary, any games or lotteries already under way at the time the variation takes effect will be allowed to conclude in accordance with those limits that were in effect when the activity started. The new subsection (4) will clarify that a lottery will be considered to be under way where a person has already made a payment to participate in that lottery but the lottery has not yet completed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 66, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(3) Where regulations are made under subsection (2) which reduce the amount of a maximum relevant payment or of maximum winnings, or both, of a relevant game, a relevant lottery or a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose, the coming into operation of the regulations shall not affect such a game, lottery or activity already underway but not completed on such coming into operation.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a relevant lottery or a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose that is a lottery shall be taken to be underway where a relevant payment has been made in respect of the lottery concerned by any participant.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 68, to delete lines 24 to 26 and substitute the following:
“(b) pool betting for an event, a series of events or a class of events specified in the licence, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 55, 57, 62, 63, 68 and 69 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 69, line 28, to delete “sell or supply” and substitute “subject to subsection (2), sell or supply”.
These technical amendments clarify the application of section 88 of the Bill. Section 88 provides that the authority may issue a business-to-business gambling licence, which authorises the licensee to sell or supply a gambling product or services.
Amendment No. 50 restructures section 88, as currently drafted, into a new subsection (1).
Amendment No. 51 inserts a new subsection 88(2) to provide that a business-to-business licensee may not sell a gaming machine if such a machine cannot be adapted to comply with the maximum payment and winning limits set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Amendment No. 55 provides that where a person applies for a business-to-consumer gambling licence, he or she must indicate as part of the application if he or she wishes to provide games for the purpose of gambling via a gaming machine and the number of machines he or she wishes to operate.
Amendment No. 57 provides that a business-to-consumer licence issued by the authority shall specify the number of gaming machines that may be used by a licensee pursuant to his or her licence.
Amendment No. 62 restructures subsection (1) to provide that licensees may apply to the authority to vary the games they can provide pursuant to a licence to vary the number of gaming machines a licensee may operate pursuant to a gambling licence or, where they wish, to vary the games that may be provided via a gaming machine where the licensees did not originally do so at the time of applying for a gaming licence.
Amendment No. 63 provides that where an application is made to vary a gambling licence, any supporting information or documentation for that application must include details of the number of gaming machines proposed to be used by the licensee making the application where appropriate.
Amendment No. 68 amends section 121 to refer to the correct subsections in section 88.
Amendment No. 69 inserts the correct references to section 88, subsections (2) and (3), alongside the current reference to section 119 in section 122.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 70, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“(2) A Business to Business gambling licence shall not authorise the sale or supply, directly or indirectly, in the State, of a gambling product that is a gaming machine unless the machine is capable of being adapted from time to time to reflect the maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings, for the time being in force, in respect of the type of gambling played on the machine.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 70, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(b) in relation to a gaming licence held by a licensee, each relevant game the licensee may provide pursuant to that licence,
(c) in relation to a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose held by a licensee, where applicable, each game specified in the licence as a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose,”.
Amendment No. 52 clarifies that a licensee's entry on the register of gambling licences should include details of the games and activities he or she is authorised to provide pursuant to his or her gambling licence.
Amendment agreed to.
There is nobody present to move amendment No. 53.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 83, lines 28 and 29, to delete “once-off gaming, betting or lottery activity or product” and substitute “once-off gaming or lottery activity or product”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 87, to delete lines 12 and 13 and substitute the following:
“(ii) where a gaming licence is sought, the game or games the person seeks to provide pursuant to the licence and, where it is intended to provide the game through a gaming machine, the number of gaming machines proposed to be used, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
As regards amendment No. 56, I do not think you wish to proceed with the amendments in this group, Minister. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Amendment No. 56 is not being proceeded with. What about the others in the group, amendments Nos. 58, 61, 66, 67 and 90?
They are all linked.
You are not proceeding with them.
Not at this moment. We intend to bring them forward at a later stage. With a commitment to Deputy Ó Ríordáin on an amendment he had, we were going to reconsider the wording here. We do intend to move them at a future stage.
Yes, but you are not moving them at this stage.
We are not moving them at this time.
Amendment No. 56 not moved.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 89, line 2, to delete “, and” and substitute “and where the relevant games are to be provided through a gaming machine, the number of gaming machines that may be used to provide those games, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 58 not moved.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 89, line 15, to delete “it shall notify the person” and substitute “it shall, by notice in writing, inform the person”.
Amendment No. 59 is a technical drafting amendment to specify that where the authority refuses to grant an application for a gambling licence it shall notify the applicant in writing of that decision. Amendment No. 60 is a technical amendment recommended by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel that restructures, rewords and tidies the existing subsection (5) for the purpose of clarity.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 89, to delete lines 18 to 24 and substitute the following:
“(5) The Authority shall, by notice in writing, inform the person who made an application under section 108 or 109, as the case may be, and, if different, the proposed licensee, within 14 days of the date of a decision under subsection (1) to grant a licence but not to grant that licence in respect of—
(a) in the case of a betting licence, all the events, series of events or class of events in respect of which the person sought to provide pool betting,
(b) all the games which the person sought to provide or for the number of gaming machines proposed to be used, pursuant to the licence applied for, or
(c) all the lottery products or activities which the person sought to provide pursuant to the licence applied for.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 61 not moved.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 91, lines 20 and 21, to delete all words from and including “(1) A licensee” in line 20 down to and including line 21 and substitute the following:
“(1) A licensee of a gaming licence may apply to the Authority—
(a) to vary the relevant game or games which the licensee may provide pursuant to the gaming licence,
(b) where relevant games are provided through a gaming machine pursuant to the gaming licence, to vary the number of gaming machines which the licensee may use pursuant to the gaming licence to provide a relevant game or games, or
(c) to provide relevant games through a gaming machine where the licensee did not at the time the licensee applied for the licence, wish to provide those games through a gaming machine.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 91, line 33, to delete “may specify” and substitute “may specify, and, in the case of an application referred to in subsection (1) (b) or (c), the application shall specify the number of gaming machines proposed to be used”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 92, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“Prohibition of Credit Card Gambling
113. (1) A licence to which this section relates shall not be issued by the Authority to an applicant for such licence unless the application is accompanied by an undertaking given by the applicant in the prescribed form stating that if the licence is issued then, during the period to which that licence remains in force, that applicant as the holder of the licence—
(a) will not accept bets or otherwise deal in bets, as the case may be, placed using a credit card,
(b) will not accept bets or otherwise deal in bets, as the case may be, placed by means of an online payment system commonly referred to as an electronic wallet, or any other system to like effect unless, at the time the bet is so accepted or otherwise dealt with, there is a subsisting assurance given in writing by the provider of that system to the holder of the licence issued under subsection (2) as the case may be, that the provider’s system prevents, or there are other controls put in place to prevent the use, either directly or indirectly, of a credit card for the purpose of placing or otherwise dealing in bets with that holder, and
(c) will take all reasonable precautions to ensure that undertaking referred to in paragraph (a) is complied with by the provider of the system concerned.
(2) Where upon the commencement of this section the licence final day, within the meaning of this Act as appropriate for the licence concerned, that next occurs is more than 3 months after such commencement, then the holder of that licence concerned, being a bookmaker, remote bookmaker or remote betting intermediary as the case may be, shall 3 months after such commencement, submit an undertaking in the prescribed form stating that, during the period to which that licence remains in force, that holder—
(a) will not accept bets or otherwise deal in bets, as the case may be, placed using a credit card,
(b) will not accept bets or otherwise deal in bets, as the case may be, placed by means of an online payment system commonly known as an electronic wallet, or any other system to like effect unless, at the time the bet is so accepted or otherwise dealt with, there is a subsisting assurance given in writing by the provider of that system to the holder of that licence that the provider’s payment system prevents, or there are other controls put in place to prevent the use, either directly or indirectly, of a credit card for the purpose of placing or otherwise dealing in bets with that holder, and
(c) will take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the undertaking referred to in paragraph (a) is complied with by the provider of the system concerned.
(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), where the provider of an online payments system, or any other system to like effect, to whom this section relates fails to comply with an assurance given to a person for the purpose of a licence to which subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) relates, then that provider shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—
(i) on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, or
(ii) on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.
(b) In proceedings for an offence under this subsection, it shall be a defence for the person charged to show that that person took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(4) In this section—
“credit card” has the meaning it has in the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and includes a digital version of a credit card;
“placed” and “placing”, in relation to a bet, includes being placed or placing by remote means.”.
Before Deputy Gould takes the floor, I wish to note that this is an area in which he has done a lot of work. He had a Private Members' Bill on it. We all know that credit card gambling causes serious harm. All the groups we met that are concerned about gambling highlighted this issue. It allows people to run up serious debts and can lead to major gambling harm. We know 55,000 people in the State are seriously affected with a gambling difficulty.
I ask the Minister of State to reconsider his position on this. This is a constructive and positive amendment. It seeks to protect people who are vulnerable and at risk. It would prevent people from losing money they do not have. I take on board the Minister of State's sincerity with regard to the Bill and that he is trying to bring forward the best possible legislation, but we have to protect people from losing money they do not have. We met numerous groups about different parts of the Bill relating to gambling harm. Deputy Daly and I met families and people who lost loved ones as a result of suicide because of gambling debt. People gambled all the money they had and everything they could get their hands on. This amendment would protect such vulnerable people. It is positive and constructive. Is the Minister of State willing to consider it and maybe bring it in later? I do not want to call a division and lose the vote. I would sooner work with him to try to move things forward. I am really firm on this as I believe it is the right thing to do.
The Minister of State knows what I am going to say because Deputy Daly and I discussed it with him last night. I sincerely support Deputy Gould in his concerns. I think of a person, perhaps late at night, maybe under the influence of something, sitting down with this useless article of a thing, their phone, in one hand and a credit card in the other.
You find your phone very useful. It is hard to part you from it.
They may be watching on Netflix a horse race in Kentucky, a place they have never been and never will be, and betting the kitchen sink on one of two old, worn-out horses. That is the concern we should have, not with the respectable bookmaker shops and the people we have all supported. When you go to the Killarney or Tralee races - I never had the honour of going to the Galway races - or Listowel racetrack, which is great, you see respectable and normal betting. We see the way bookies treat their customers. They want to take care of their customers because they have a reputation to keep. Last night, I spoke about a good friend of mine, Timmy O'Leary from Kenmare, County Kerry. He was our local bookie. He made sure that people bet what they could bet, and did not bet what they should not bet. When we see the trouble caused in family homes through people spending money they cannot afford to lose or endanger, that is wrong.
There are certain aspects of this Bill we will come to in a while under other sections. However, on this issue, on which I again acknowledge the work done by Deputy Gould, we should be doing more. We should be tougher and stricter on the use of credit cards and phones. There is nothing in the world wrong with what I call normal betting, the person who goes in to bet a tenner, a fiver, €20 or €50 if they can and supports the local bookie shops. There is nothing in the world wrong with a family, an individual or a couple going to the races and supporting the local racetrack. It is a source of great enjoyment to me to support the greyhound industry in County Kerry, and we have an excellent track in Tralee. I enjoy going there on a Friday or Saturday night, meeting friends and having a little bet. There is nothing in the world wrong with that. It is what I call dangerous betting that we should have concerns over, and that is what I am worried about. I believe we are not going far enough in that regard.
Words of wisdom, Deputy.
In the same vein, this is very serious. I have come across couples and families totally broke up by this system where they can bet morning, noon and night online. As has been said, going to the races for a day is a different thing where people have a meal or two in the course of a day. They set out to spend a few bob, they have so much in their pockets and they can cut their cloth according to their measure. They know what they are doing, but at certain times when they are betting online, they lose and they invariably follow that by trying to redeem their loss and the story keeps getting worse. The next thing they have exceeded their credit limit betting with a bookie online.
Everybody is talking about this because it seems to be hitting youngsters and young families the hardest. There are fellas who used to have a flutter on race days or dog race nights. There are people who enjoy that kind of thing and they do it sensibly. However, this has to be curtailed or curbed somehow if this Bill is to mean anything to people who seem to be getting caught up in this. In other words, it must be stopped. It has to be stopped some way or other. Bookies, or institutions, or big bookie companies must be stopped from allowing this type of betting. It cannot be continued. There is no face for these people to look at. When the bookie looks out he knows his clients and he knows the frame of mind they are in. He has a duty, the same as a publican has a duty not to serve any more drink to some fella who is under the weather or has had a bit too much. He must see after him, see him home, tell him he has had enough or ring for someone to come for him. This system that has been developed is totally anonymous and the bookies do not know who they are actually dealing with. That must be stopped if we are to be worth our salt. We must work together to ensure we do something to stop this once and for all. Many people are losing out and hurting. This is hurting relationships and children who are maybe left without food or clothes. It is a very important issue and I thank Deputy Gould for pursuing it.
Deputy Gould has been raising this concern for a considerable time and I know banning credit card gambling is something close to his heart. I fully agree with him and have taken on board his concerns.
Section 157 entitled, Obligation in respect of method of payment for relevant gambling activity, provides:
(1) A licensee to whom this Chapter applies shall not—
(a) accept payment for a relevant gambling activity by credit card,
(b) extend a credit facility to a participant, or
(c) participate in, arrange, permit or knowingly facilitate the giving of credit in connection with a relevant gambling activity.
I am satisfied that the legislation covers what the Deputy seeks to do. He has raised the matter several times in the past and I have taken it into consideration in the legislation.
What subsection is that?
It is section 157(1).
I did not take that from this, but if the Minister of State is giving a commitment that this legislation will ban the use of credit cards, not just online but for all gambling, I accept that. It is in store anyway.
Does anyone else want to contribute on this amendment as the Minister can only come in once more? No. Will the Minister clarify the position?
I am happy to give the commitment that it applies to all gambling activities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 92, line 22, to delete “game, betting activity or lottery” and substitute “game or lottery”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 are not being considered.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 100, line 28, to delete “Subject to subsection (2)” and substitute “Subject to section 88(2) and subsection (2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 101, line 23, to delete “Subject to section 119” and substitute “Subject to sections 88(2) and 119”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 105, line 33, to delete “bank” and substitute “regulated financial service provider”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 106, to delete lines 30 to 36.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 107, line 1, to delete “bank” and substitute “regulated financial services provider”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 73 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 74 to 81, inclusive, and 86 to 89, inclusive are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 109, to delete lines 9 to 15 and substitute the following:
“Interpretation (Chapter 1 – Part 6)
137. In this Chapter—
“Act of 2009” means the Broadcasting Act 2009;
“applicable regulations”, in relation to advertising, means regulations made under section 140;
“audiovisual on-demand media service” has the same meaning as it has in section 2 of the Act of 2009;
“broadcaster” has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2009;
“broadcasting service” has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2009;
“editorial responsibility” means, in relation to an on-demand sound service, effective control over—
(a) the selection of sound programmes or sound recordings, or both, as the case may be, and
(b) the organisation of those programmes or recordings, or both, as the case may be, in a programme schedule or a catalogue which lists programmes or recordings that are available;
“electronic communications network” has the same meaning as it has in section 2(1) of the Communications Regulation Act 2002;
“on-demand sound service” means a service (within the meaning of Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) where—
(a) the principal purpose of the service, or of a dissociable section of the service, is to provide sound programmes or sound recordings by electronic communications networks to the general public in order to inform, entertain or educate, and
(b) that service is under the editorial responsibility of the provider of that service;
“relevant content” means, in relation to advertising—
(a) a relevant gambling activity, or
(b) in the case of a Business to Consumer gambling licence, the licensee of that gambling licence;
“social media service” means a website or software application (commonly known and in this Chapter referred to as an “app”) that permits a person who is a registered user of the service, has an account with the service or who creates a profile with the service to do any or all of the following—
(a) create, share and view user-generated content on the website or application,
(b) generate content on the website or software application that can be viewed by other users of the service, or
(c) communicate with other users of the service;
“video-sharing platform service” has the same meaning as it has in section 2(2) and (3) of the Act of 2009.”
I indicated on Committee Stage that I would bring amendments to clarify the advertising provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 74 inserts a series of definitions into Part 6 to ensure the language used in the Bill is consistent with the language and definitions in the Broadcasting Act 2009, other media regulation Acts of 2020 to 2022 and in relevant EU law.
Amendment No. 75 inserts a new section into Part 6 to put an obligation on licensees to comply with the advertising provisions in the Bill. Any breach of an obligation may be addressed by administrative sanction or criminal prosecution, if more appropriate.
During engagement with stakeholders across all sectors, it was requested that advertising restrictions in Part 6 be clarified. I am therefore proposing a series of amendments to clarify the obligations on licensees and other relevant parties in order to strengthen the regulation of gambling advertising and to protect people from such advertising. Given the scope and importance of the regulation-making power in section 141(3), amendment No. 76 moves this power to a dedicated section. This would bring clarity and certainty to stakeholders and provide the authority with the power and flexibility to prescribe specific content and information to be included in gambling advertising; content that may not be included in gambling advertisements; the times, places and events at which gambling advertising can be shown; and, having regard to how advertisements are shown, the frequency and duration of such advertisements. Regulations may also be made to address advertising by specific types of licensees on specific media such as television, radio, on-demand media services, social media and video-sharing services. The authority will also be able to consider and tailor the content required in gambling and advertising, having regard to each advertising medium and the differences between advertising on television, radio, a billboard or social media platforms, for example. Importantly, this section clarifies that regulations may be made in respect of advertising on websites, apps or in print media and regulations may be made to address advertising in or at specific places or events.
Turning to amendment No. 77, I propose to delete the existing section 138 and introduce a number of new sections that will clearly and unambiguously set out the obligations and restrictions applicable to each medium that gambling advertising can be provided on. These new sections will reflect the policy principles currently set out in section 138, but will do so in a manner that has regard to what is practical and feasible on each medium. Following extensive engagement with stakeholders in relation to the advertising and watershed provisions of the Bill, a number of concerns were raised regarding how the Bill will affect the broadcast of sport in Ireland. In particular, it has been asserted that the Bill's advertising restrictions will effectively block the broadcasting of Premier League football, horse racing and other live sporting events in the State. This is not the case. It is not accurate.
Concerns have also been raised about the incidental or background visibility of licensees logos, trademarks, etc. during the broadcast of live sports, such as on jerseys worn by football players or attendees at matches or on jumps or hoardings visible at racecourses and other sporting events. I am therefore introducing a clarification in these amendments to provide that the background or incidental visibility of licensees' logos, trademarks or marketing images, when displayed or mentioned at sporting events before the watershed, will not be in contravention of the Bill. This will mean that where a logo is shown, for example, at a Premier League game or at the Grand National or if an analyst on a race is identified as being an employee of a licensee, between 5.30 p.m. and 9 p.m., it will not be a contravention of the Bill.
Furthermore, I am introducing an exemption throughout Part 6 for charitable and philanthropic licensees to some of the advertising requirements of the Bill which I will set out as I discuss the amendments. This exemption will alleviate a lot of concerns raised with me about this matter. The reason for the limit of €10,000, for example, is that there is a genuine and real concern that going above €10,000 would create a situation - it is created one way or the other - where charitable organisations and sporting events will have a monopoly on this type of advertising. That is not a problem. The concern is that once a certain figure is exceeded, it will attract bad actors into the charity sector or sporting organisations. For example, someone might set up a darts club as a sports club, just to name it after a particular gambling organisation. We have been looking at that carefully and considering how to address it.
The justice committee unanimously recommended that we would bring in this watershed and that there would be no exemptions. That is written in the report. However, listening to Deputies from that committee, it is clear that their intention was not to include charity and sporting organisations. It is fair to say that, on reflection, the committee would have included exemptions, had the matter been considered at the time. That was raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy in her amendment and by others.
There is an amendment providing for a cap of €10,000. We have been working with our officials to come up with a solution that would allow us to lift that cap so as to allow charities, sporting organisations and other philanthropic organisations, such as community groups, to advertise and be exempted from the watershed, without the risk of attracting bad actors or gambling organisations to use that exemption for their own benefit. Unfortunately, some organisations will use any method they can to take advantage of a situation. The €10,000 limit takes approximately 95% of clubs out of the situation, but not particular charities. I am now confident, having discussed the matter with a number of charities and learned about the particular problems they have, such as the GAA and a number of other organisations that still have a problem with this provision, that I have considered their problems. I have also considered the original recommendations of the justice committee, considering it was not the committee's intention to have no exemptions. We need exemptions and I intend to bring forward amendments when the Bill goes through the Seanad to exempt charities from the watershed. It is not possible to do so today. In conjunction with that, I will bring forward additional amendments to safeguard charities and other organisations from bad actors being able to use that exemption, so that we will not have the example of a gambling company setting up a darts club in its name to start running ads for the club as a way to run ads, or bad actors setting up charities to run gambling activities using the exemption. I am taken by Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment.
We will introduce amendments in the Seanad to ensure charities and sporting organisations are exempted. We think we have now found a way to ensure those bad actors cannot take advantage of any exemptions.
I have to speak on other legislation before a committee. I appreciate being given time to speak. These are very important amendments which go to the core of how local charities and philanthropic bodies would be impacted by this legislation. We are on Report and Final Stages. I said we should recommit the Bill because the question before the House will be whether we pass this Bill with the restrictions that are provided for. I hear what the Minister of State said about the watershed, which relates to on-demand audiovisual and sound. Most charities do not advertise on those platforms, that is, Spotify and YouTube.
To clarify, I did say watershed but I should have been more clear. I mean complete exemptions from the advertising ban, so that would mean the watershed and online. I apologise to the Deputy.
That would be appreciated because the 9.30 p.m. cut-off provided in the section would impact on radio bingos that a lot of charities use to raise money. We made the point strongly last week that charities need to be exempt.
The problem with legislation is that we have to deal with what is in front of us. I accept that the Minister of State spoke in good faith and it is clear from his response that he has listened to what we have been saying on this side of the House. Amendment No. 78 will kill off fundraising in a lot of areas. I will give a practical example of how this will work. It will mean that a local GAA club running a raffle with a prize of €10,000 or more can only advertise on social media to the people who like the club's page. What the proposed section 139 will allow, however, is for Paddy Power to come in and run a draw for, let us say, a trip to Orlando for a family of four with $2,000 spending money. That would fall under the €10,000 limit. Paddy Power can then say the money will go to the Irish Cancer Society and can advertise in an unlimited way to as many people as it wants to.
The other problem with section 139 is that the local club in the local community can only advertise to the people who have liked its Facebook but Paddy Power - I am not picking on Paddy Power but using the company as an example - with the firepower it has can run a draw tomorrow morning asking people to like and share its page - we all know how it works - and the winner will receive four tickets for the Taylor Swift concert alongside two nights' accommodation and €3,000. It is not a competition and it does not fall under the definition of a lottery but it increases Paddy Power's footprint of likes. Therefore, under this legislation, Paddy Power would be allowed to continue to target individuals.
The problem with gambling is that these companies are targeting the same individuals over and over again. The legislation, as drafted and as we are asked to pass it in the Dáil today, is flawed in that regard but I hear what the Minister of State is saying. What we tried to do in the amendment put forward by Deputy Daly was to exempt these charities and philanthropic bodies from that provision. Very wisely, we have a specific licence for that sector so it will be easier to exempt them. There will always be groups that will try to abuse that. The reason legislation had to be introduced a number of years ago was that various groups were running lotteries and pretending they were for charities. We then had to stipulate that so much of the funds raised would go to the charity sector. There will be a bit of a cat and mouse game here but we need to make sure we are not taking out a sledgehammer.
I will not go into much more detail about the other impacts these sections would have because I heard what the Minister of State said but they will crucify the activities of charities. Under this legislation, people will not be allowed to sell a raffle ticket for their local school door to door if the prize exceeds €2,000. They will not be able to sell a ticket in the local shop or pub. The local GAA club will not be allowed to do it either. We cannot pass this type of legislation today, as the Minister of State is asking us to do. The restrictions imposed by the Bill, where a person has to buy a ticket on the premises stated on the application, are far too rigid and an authority is being set up to police this.
On the issue of commercial operators using a draw and giving the proceeds to charity, the way to deal with that is to provide that it benefit somebody who holds a charitable licence.
Amendment No. 86 deals with applications to the High Court where "a relevant service provider contravenes an obligation imposed on a licensee by or under this Chapter". The issue I have is that many people who will be opposing or breaching the regulations under this legislation will not be a licensee. They will not have applied for a licence. This is, therefore, important where somebody has a licence and is breaching the 9.30 p.m. watershed or advertising to young people and so forth. What happens to those outside the sector who do not have a licence? Maybe that has been dealt with but it is just something that came to my attention.
The annual draws are gone. I make that point again. Until now, the local GAA club applied to the Garda for a permit. If the amount exceeded a certain limit, the club had to apply to the courts and go to the District Court and all the rest. Those days are gone with this legislation. We welcome the establishment of the gambling regulatory authority. The authority will now have a database and will be very clear that someone must apply for a licence two months before a ticket is sold. The tickets are then sold and the licence remains in place for two months after the draw concludes or 12 months from when the licence was applied for. That is what the legislation states. It then states that, legally, the authority cannot issue another licence until 12 months have elapsed. At best, if the tickets were sold within an hour, which is impossible in these scenarios, the annual 12-month draw will be 16 months and in reality it will probably be 18 or 19 months because clubs and organisations take two months to sell tickets. That section has to go because these organisations run on a calendar and their activists and members now that the draw is in March, August, September or whatever. There are serious problems with the legislation. There is a lot of good intent behind it. I hear what the Minister of State said about what he plans to do and I look forward to his amendments.
Let us be clear that the target here is the large providers, particularly online, but there is a conflation here between fundraising and gambling. I have no doubt many of the Deputies here have been contacted by sporting officials, as I have been up to this afternoon, speaking about the potentially devastating impact on local clubs that are struggling for money, particularly with regard to their lotto fundraising. We all know that many clubs are under severe pressure after the winter we have had, when most pitches were closed during February and March. Improvements need to be made. The integration of the GAA and the Ladies Gaelic Football Association, LGFA, is coming down the tracks and more facilities will have to be constructed to help with that. Building costs have increased by 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% over the past few years and projects that had been planned will need extra money to get them over the line. That is particularly the case when a club gets to the latter stages of a county championship. Hurling clubs and football clubs from Causeway, Kilmoyley, Ardfert and all around north Kerry and indeed-----
Kilgarvan.
I was just getting to the hurling club in Kilgarvan, and the one in Killarney as well.
We beat the best of north Kerry, both times.
That was a long time ago.
You still remember it though, and I will not let you forget it.
Funding for cancer charities collapsed during Covid. They were not able to fundraise and Radio Kerry stepped in at the time to introduce the Radio Kerry bingo for four cancer charities. In the past couple of years, more than €330,000 has been raised for Recovery Haven, the Cork-Kerry cancer bus, which is essential, Comfort for Chemo Kerry and the hospice. These charities are concerned because the bingo prize stands at €15,000 at the moment. It is not always at that level, as it can go lower or higher. Those are the concerns that have been raised.
They are concerned because the prize fund currently stands at €15,000. It is not always that high; the prize fund can go lower or higher. They are the concerns that have been raised with me.
I listened to what the Minister said. I am hopeful that this can be addressed in the Seanad. We are prepared to work with him on whatever proposals he brings forward. There is an easy way around helping fundraisers and preventing larger gambling organisations from getting an even greater foothold in society.
Last night I was not convinced by the Minister's argument and I am still not convinced today, and I am sorry to say that. The Bill contains a number of provisions that will affect highly effective charity fundraising for deserving causes around Ireland, via radio bingo games on local radio. These games, which raise significant and much needed funds for charities, involve the distribution of bingo books in local areas and are advertised on local radio during the day, along with the winning bingo numbers being broadcast. They are well supported by listeners, not just in County Kerry but on local radio throughout the country.
For example, Radio Kerry to date has raised more than €330,000 for four Kerry cancer charities: the Kerry Hospice Foundation, Recovery Haven, Comfort for Chemo Kerry and the Cork-Kerry cancer bus. Every family in County Kerry has been positively affected by the cancer bus and Radio Kerry is directly responsible for a lot of the fundraising that goes into it. All proceeds from the games go directly to the charities. For example, Radio Kerry does not charge for advertising time as it considers that is it putting its shoulders to the wheel to help these causes. The loss of this generous income from the people of Kerry would have significant implications for the four charities I have mentioned.
The proposed restrictions on games in the Bill are negative and will create unintended consequences that have been missed. There are a number of ways in which the effectiveness of these fundraising games would be severely affected by the new legislation. There would be a ban on radio advertising before 9 p.m., meaning that no advertising could take place during the key daytime period of radio listenership. That is an important point. This would damage the viability of charity fundraising endeavours as fewer people would be informed of the games and where to buy bingo books. This time approach is inequitable for radio compared to TV. A one-for-all-size approach does not work in broadcasting, as radio and TV have different prime time audience periods. That is an important point.
The proposal to exempt charity fundraising up to a prize value limit of €10,000 from the ban is insufficient and unworkable. This is because bingo games with a prize value of that level cannot often roll over to a second week, meaning that the prize value would be well in excess of the €10,000 limit and, therefore, the games could not be advertised. Some bingo game licences have a value of €30,000. The best approach is to exempt charity fundraising games entirely.
It is vital that charity bingo games advertised on radio are exempted entirely from the legislation so that the fundraising that radio stations support can continue. I support the exemption of advertising for charity fundraising promoted on radio from the Bill. I ask that the Minister of State supports this and not talk about changing it afterwards because, quite simply, now is the time to act.
With regard to the GAA and other types of fundraising, we know small clubs the length and breadth of the country which are in receipt of lottery and sports capital grant funding always have shortfalls and local fundraising has to happen. A good friend and colleague of ours, Derry Healy, from Headfort, Barraduff, was involved with a group of people which came up the idea of raffling a house. That was a fairly ambitious operation, but the group did it. Like everything in life, there are always copycats. Other people copied the idea and went along with the same model. Derry Healy's group did first and did it excellently. Would that group, as well as all of the other people like him the length and breadth of the country, be able to do that following the passage of this legislation? I think they would be put in grave jeopardy because people would look at the value of the prize at the end of the day. Sometimes, the bigger the prize the bigger the audience and money that goes into charity fundraising.
It is bizarre that the national lottery is completely exempt. I am not attacking it for one minute. It is great. It is something people look forward to, and more power to it. People spend what they can afford to and there is the lure of the massive windfall prizes. We all know the bigger the lotto, the more revenue goes into it, in particular over the past couple of days. There is nothing wrong with that because an awful lot of the money raised from the national lottery goes towards very good works and is put to really good use. It is amazing that there seems to be one rule for one and another rule for another.
I ask the Minister to think of all these small clubs, whether hurling, football or other sports, and the bingo on the radio that people cherish and adore. One of the most important things in the week for my late mother was trips to bingo, as well as the bingo on Radio Kerry and listening to the numbers being drawn. It is a source of enjoyment and sport. It also ensures that we pool our resources for good charitable purposes.
I am sure the Minister of State, like me, would hate to think that something he has done would adversely affect that. I know that is not his intention. I have said that there are unintended consequences. Sometimes one action leads to a reaction in a way that we might not have thought through. This is a typical example. I thank those who have already raised this issue. I want to raise this issue on behalf of Radio Kerry and all of our clubs in County Kerry, and put forward the best case to the Minister. I plead with him to do the right thing.
I raised this with the Minister last Wednesday evening. I cannot understand how fundraising as we know it has become part of the Bill. I know about the fundraising that goes on in clubs. Most of the work done in local GAA and soccer clubs is done by volunteers who give of their time free of charge. There are things that have to be paid for, such as insurance, travel to games, taking care of youngsters and hiring buses and things like that. Those things cost money, and that is what fundraising is for.
One weekly lotto in Gneevegullia in takes place every Monday night, where seven or eight lads carry out the draw to fundraise for their club. On any night in Killarney, I could meet five different people selling tickets for their local GAA club, including Spa, Kilcummin, Dr. Crokes and Killarney Legion. My father used to do the lotto every Friday night in a bar in Kilcummin for the Mastergeeha soccer club.
God almighty, although this Government has done its share of good things in its time, it has done many bad things and has hurt rural communities. This, however, will cap them all. The Government will go down in history for it and will be buried in history. If it thinks people in the places I have mentioned are going to take this lying down, such that they cannot have their weekly lotto to help their local GAA, soccer or basketball club, it has another guess coming to it. This Bill is hitting at the heart and soul of rural communities, and indeed urban communities, which are also struggling to survive.
The radio bingo helps the Kerry–Cork link bus. I was involved a few weeks ago in a vintage run from Millstreet to Killarney. So many people gave of their time and supported the event. We thank Radio Kerry for what it has done and continues to do.
The Minister of State has asked us to let the Bill pass here tonight on the grounds that it will be amended in the Seanad. As a Deputy elected to Dáil Éireann, I will not accept the notion of giving the Bill the green light this evening and depending on the Seanad to reverse or amend it. The Government should get it right here first. I, for one, will not be voting for it in its current form, and I make no bones about that. This is totally wrong.
Why is the Government including fundraising as a form of gambling? We asked the Government about online gambling a few minutes ago. Something like that must be dealt with, but not clubs that are fundraising to develop our youth, get them interested and take them away from undesirable substitutes. We really appreciate the volunteers, chairpersons, secretaries, treasurers and others who help with youngsters. They need time. We appreciate all the volunteering that has been done by the likes of Derry Healy, Ritchie McAuliffe and the O'Keeffes in Gneevgullia. They all deserve great credit. The same applies to people in Rathmore and others right around the whole place. They are doing considerable work for the younger generation, and we must not interfere with this in any way. The Government should take its nose out of it and do what needs to be done. It should stay away from the clubs.
We have received phone call after phone call all day and all the week asking what we are at. The Government should stay away from fundraising altogether and deal with the issue of online gambling, because that is where the trouble is. The clubs are not a problem, nor are the volunteers. They need to be supported rather than blocked through this Bill. I will not let the Bill go to the Seanad, as has been requested; I will be voting clearly against it, full stop, because it should not be mentioned at all.
The people do not trust the Government, and that is God's honest truth. They saw what the Government tried to do through the referendums. It tried to cod them. With this Bill, it could be the same. We must spell out clearly what this Bill is about and take fundraising out of it completely because it has nothing to do with it. The Government should steer away from it. The people do not trust the Government and are asking what is going on and whether the whole lot of us, including me, have gone mad. I have said I am not going mad, that I am trying to stop the Bill and that I spoke against it last week. Until I drop dead, I will stay talking about it.
The Bill will interfere with sports clubs, including GAA clubs, and all the other various clubs. They have only a few ways to fundraise, and the way in question was the one they found to be successful. Most clubs do it this way and that is how they stay going. The few that do not are in trouble. I appeal to the Government to get it right before it expects Deputies here to vote for it. I am not voting for it as it is.
I welcome the fact that the Minister of State listened to the arguments we made. I take at face value his statement that the changes will be made and I appreciate that there have to be safeguards. There is no doubt that we have to allow for and expect bad actors. The intent of the Bill is primarily good. It is to address harmful gambling, which we know destroys lives. It is good that the Minister of State accepts that the committee did not intend to include fundraising as gambling. What the Minister of State brings to the Seanad is likely to come back here.
It is important to reiterate that we have approximately 12,000 charities, many of which are schools. There are all sorts of organisations, including social care and healthcare organisations. They get most of their funds not through philanthropy but through direct fundraising. It is important that the amendments made take this into account.
Many of the services provided through charities really should be provided by way of general taxation because they should be public services. Services should not be delivered by charities but by way of rights. This is an entirely different debate, but it is one that we should have at some point.
On the point Deputy Doherty made on annual draws, I expect that several people from the local GAA or soccer club will knock on my door in December. They work according to an annual arrangement so they can predict funding for the following year. It would be quite reasonable to change the timelines prescribed in legislation in this regard. That kind of thing is not something that should mean we do not get past this Stage without divisions.
Now that there is a focus on having fundraising separate from gambling, the focus is on understanding what needs to be done. I hope this is the approach the Minister of State will take.
We must remember it is not just about soccer and GAA clubs; very often, it involves schools. I was working recently with a school that was trying to get a fundraising licence just to augment some school facilities. The idea that a school would be a charity is difficult to get your head around, but most of them are. We cannot ignore the fact that some of the services should be straightforward public services.
We have underinvested greatly in some things that are really beneficial to society. In this regard, not enough can be spent on sports and other leisure activities. If a youngster can be diverted, it feeds into exactly what the Minister of State is trying to do, which is to produce a healthy society. Eliminating gambling is one aspect but there is a conflict. I am glad he has listened and is taking on board the point, but maybe he will address some of the issues raised by several of us.
I rise to support these amendments. It appears that we are talking to the wall. We talked again last week.
You are talking to Government amendments.
Gabh mo leithscéal?
Is the Minister of State muttering something there? I know he is not listening. If he is going to say something, he should say it so I can hear it.
I am listening, Deputy McGrath. You said you rose to speak to support the amendments. You are speaking to Government amendments at the moment.
Gabh mo leithscéal. The Minister of State is quite sharp on that. I am speaking as I did last week. We are on amendment No. 74, which I am totally opposed to. The Minister of State is trying to make his slipshod way out of this. As I said last week, from the start of the Bill, people cannot understand the Minister of State. He just will not listen to anybody. He has been captured completely and utterly by the officials or by somebody. Even in Wexford, the racing fraternity tells me the Minister of State will not meet them. They cannot meet him even though his dad is still alive and well, thank God. I was in here with him and he would meet and has met people. He cannot even get it through to the Minister of State that this must be tweaked and you cannot have overkill. That is what they tell me. I asked the people who contacted me to go and talk to the former Deputy, John, an iar-Aire Stáit freisin. That is what they came back to me with.
This is a cobbled-together three-party Government with some Independents supporting it. It is stubborn and obstinate. The last thing I saw like this was with the former Minister, Shane Ross, with his road traffic Bill. He would not listen to anybody or any reason. There are two Irelands there. All of Ireland is affected by serious gambling. We understand that and it has to be dealt with but, as I said, we have a massive bloodstock industry in Tipperary and indeed in Kildare. It is in many parts of the country. We are proud of it in Tipperary. I have been talking to people in the industry there and they are concerned. There are wonderful trainers at Coolmore and many more, such as Mouse Morris. There are dozens of them and indeed smaller trainers as well. There is Brian Acheson. People put their life into this industry and create thousands of jobs and opportunities, and also some fun. Goodness knows we need fun in our life. We need a flutter every now and then. The Government has become a killjoy. I said it last week.
The people who work on and service the tracks and the suppliers who supply the food outlets, the sand, drainage, the fencing and everything else comprise a huge industry. You have to be careful. When you are trying to make an omelette, you have to break an egg and cannot do it without doing that, but you do not need a sledgehammer to crack a chestnut, which is what the Government is using here with this wide sweep. As far as the clubs are considered, and dúirt mé é sin an tseachtain seo caite, they are the lifeblood of so many communities, whether here in Ballymun or down in Caislean Nua Cumann Lúthchleas Gael or indeed Kilfeacle's split the bucket draw, St. Michael's in Tipperary town, Clonmel Town Football Club or Carrick Rovers. They are all over the place, up as far as Newport, County Tipperary, including Cashel King Cormacs GAA. They are everywhere. Almost all of them have a small fundraiser, whether it is split the bucket or the lotto.
Last Monday night, I was glad to get a WhatsApp message. Margaret and I have ten grandchildren. Two of the youngest, Cathal and Clodagh, won €100 in the Newcastle GAA lotto. I am sure their dad and mam put them into it. It is excitement from little things like that. Even for an adult, €100 is nice to win when you are supporting a club. It is always nice to have some hope of winning. They have to do that to keep going because, as the Minister of State knows, all the clubs I mentioned are continually looking for sports capital funding to assist them. Many have got great support but they always have to have matching funding to draw down the grants.
To run a club, God be good to the late Elsie Cullinan and many others like Elsie all over the country, who washed the jerseys. They took them in whatever state they came in and had them ready for the next match again. Those kind of volunteers are still there but there are not as many and they are not as frequent or as dedicated. There are many great volunteers but times have changed and evolved, with the washing now. It used to be handwashing at one time. They did not have the machines to bring the washing to get done. We cannot kill the spirit of the Irish and yet this Government is desperately trying to kill the spirit of the Gael. It is the spirit of the C.J. Kickhams from Mullinahone, which has a great club. It has a fundraising raffle too. The Government is putting limits on it, stopping it from advertising and God knows what.
Someone said this earlier. I do not know what the Government has against the Irish people who elected it. Many of the people in those clubs are involved in volunteerism and activity, from Irish dancing to karate or taekwondo, you name it. The same people who set up and run clubs are normally the same people who vote, because they are active in the community. They will vote and participate. They will be waiting for the Government. The grass is not very long on the GAA pitches and the Tipperary hurlers are unfortunately not much good at cutting it this year either, but we will come again. Beidh lá eile ag an bPaorach. They will be waiting for the Government around the corner. The Government is set against the Irish people. It will not kill the spirit of the Gael. It might get away with its legislation.
The sad part about it is that while the Opposition will say it will make changes, laws that are passed here are seldom, if ever, rescinded. In my time here, I have seen none rescinded. The Government should think about it and how much damage it is doing to the clubs and people's enthusiasm for being volunteers. Schools have to have lotteries to keep the schools funded. It is not only the clubs. Day-care centres, you name it, are all there. They all want the good of the people. They are of the people, by the people, for the people. The Government is against the people and not for the people. The Minister of State can shake his head all he likes. The people from Wexford who contact me will tell me the Minister of State will not even give them the dignity of a meeting to be lobbied. The NGOs can get in and meet members of Government and they write the text for them. I met another group, the game council of Ireland. It cannot get a meeting with a Minister of State, Deputy Browne's colleague, who does not live that far away from him, but NGOs can meet him morning, noon and night.
The way the Government is treating the people is very unfair. I say it should make haste slowly here and should think of the people because they are thinking of the Government.
We spoke about gambling regulation under the previous Government. I thought the regulation that was brought in was strong. There was a lot of talk about advertising, non-advertising and so on. People enjoy a little bit of the flutter. I am one of those who does not gamble at all. It is very rare if I ever do. I buy local lotto tickets to support local communities. I do many clinics in pubs throughout west Cork, in Durrus, Bantry, and Clonakilty and as you go along, you meet local organisations which are doing their lottos. I need to study this more but there is talk that there is some movement the Government is trying to carry out with regard to local community fundraising. That is a dangerous area to go into. That is an area where people are actually doing the Government's work. I am on 25 different committees. I was on a board of management committee up until last October or November. How many fundraisers do they have to do a year because they are not getting the funds from the State? Is the Government going to restrict them as well? The Minister of State is nodding.
The local community council has a lotto. I am involved in one of the committees in Goleen. Our lotto is for fundraising in order that we can strim the graveyards, we can do the Tidy Towns works for the community, we can clean the pitch for the soccer and the GAA and we can clean the community centre. We have workers from various different schemes but we do not have funds to pay them. We do meals on wheels and whatever. Our lotto goes out every week. We could make €700 one week. Sometimes, it can go up to €3,000, €4,000 or €5,000, then back down to €700, then up to €8,000. Is the Minister of State saying he is going to put a limit on that? How does he expect community organisations to survive? What is his game? Is the Government trying to put its paws on that money? Because of the charities regulatory Act, the Government moved in on that a few years ago. It was clever enough. It applied to any organisation that was in any way weak. Organisations are brilliant sometimes but sometimes they go down a bit and do not have the community activity. The moneys were taken back through the charities regulatory Act and many communities lost money. I remember at that time asking that, if a community group in Ballydehob lost the money, it would at least stay with other community groups in the same area, but the Government refused that.
I am asking questions about that. There are fundraisers for schools, the community council, the GAA, soccer, lotto and Cancer Connect. I could go on forever. I am involved in most of those organisations. Is the Minister of State saying he is going to introduce a new law in regard to these organisations? What kind of law will it be? Will it allow the organisations to carry on the fundraising they have always done?
Yes.
Then why do we need to change? They are not doing anything wrong. There is an old saying in Ireland, "If it ain’t broke, don't fix it". The Minister of State is saying he is going to allow these organisations to function in the very same way. Will there be absolutely no difference for any lotto that is being done by a local community, voluntary or sporting organisation? Can the Minister of State say that to me today? Will it be the same as it ever was? Is it "Yes" or "No"?
I am happy to address the issue.
I would like the Minister of State to address that question because this is a very serious matter. If there is going to be any change, that means it is not staying the same. These organisations are totally and utterly dependent on such fundraising. Deputy McGrath mentioned those involved in horse racing and greyhound racing. They have their concerns too. I listen and speak to them quite often. I would hate to think we would support people who gamble to excess and lose their livelihoods, but we hope there would always be help for people like that. However, I am very concerned about what will happen if the Minister of State goes ahead tonight with anything other than withdrawing the measure relating to the community, voluntary and sporting sectors in this country.
I can listen to reason elsewhere but I certainly cannot listen to reason here. I see what happens when there is a shortfall when it comes to paying for the tax and insurance if a local community and voluntary organisation has to buy a car so it can provide meals on wheels to people. The Minister of State will not come up with the shortfall. I do not mean the Minister of State personally, but the Government. Therefore, the community has to come up with the shortfall. I will explain to the Minister of State in two seconds how Cancer Connect in west Cork works. I know because I have been on the board of Local Link, as it is now called, and I have never taken a brown cent for it. When I mention "boards" some people freak out because they think money is being made but I never took a brown cent for being on a board. I am proud to be on that board because it delivers for the people. Cancer Connect does a lotto. It does not charge patients to take them for cancer treatment to Cork every day from Castletownbere, Goleen and other places throughout west Cork such as Bandon and Clonakilty, and it brings them home. However, there is a lotto going. People say they will give a few quid to the lotto to support the cause because it saves lives. To a degree, it saved my life, and the lives of many people. Some people are delighted to have the transfer service because they may not have another way to travel. Now the Minister of State is saying there is going to be absolutely no change to that. Is he saying that if the lotto is not won and it goes up to €10,000, there will be no change to that? I think he is wrong. I think there is going to be a change. The Minister of State cannot shove that in under the mat and get away with it. The Government is after promising, through a Fianna Fáil Deputy in west Cork, funding of €50,000, but it has not come. The Deputy continues to promise it but the funding has never arrived. It will be dished out another few times to see if the party can win a seat. That is misleading people. I know the facts. The funding has not come yet. Maybe it will come but this has been going on for the past 12 months.
The point I am trying to make is that the Minister of State cannot take money from organisations that are delivering. That is what he is going to do if he disrupts the current situation. All that will do is add another layer of bureaucracy. People are sitting around a table doing something voluntary and asking what they have to do to survive. The Minister of State has no idea about what happens in places like Ballydehob, Bandon, Clonakilty and Bantry. People are out fundraising every day. They are out with buckets and doing lotto at night. The Government is making their lives as difficult and miserable as is humanly possible. It is no wonder people are walking away from voluntary organisations. The Minister of State has got to take this provision out of the Bill immediately. If he does not, it will never be forgotten.
I add my voice to those who are asking the Minister of State to separate fundraising from gambling. He said there is a difference and that he will bring forward amendments in the Seanad. That is crucial. I know he has heard many examples today but I want to give him one or two as well.
Listening to my local radio station earlier, I heard an advertisement for North West Hospice radio bingo, as it is on every weekday. The jackpot now stands at €19,900. If this legislation was in place, such advertising could not be aired. The number of people who play radio bingo every day is substantial. The proceeds go directly to North West Hospice. We all know that the organisation provides the highest quality palliative care to those who need it. The cost of a double bingo book is €8. Most people get the double book and that is the extent of it for the week. The numbers are announced each day on the radio, and that is how the bingo is played. If this legislation were to come into force as it stands, that would have to stop.
I was not listening to the radio all day but I did hear some of it. The other advertisement I heard was for Western Gaels hurling and camogie club in west Sligo. It was advertising a dream holiday with a total prize fund of around €26,000. Advertising that on local radio is the club's lifeblood. It wants to build a home ground for camogie and hurling in County Sligo. Those are just two examples, but there are hundreds more advertised on local radio and local media. Without that advertising, they just would not succeed.
I am happy to take the bona fides of the Minister of State on this. He says he fully understands the intent of the amendments. He knows this as well as we do from local experience. I hope he will be good to his word and that the amendments to be introduced in the Seanad will ensure the examples my colleagues and I have given will be able to continue exactly in the way they currently operate.
First, I welcome the Minister of State's decision to bring forward amendments in the Seanad. This is a very important Bill. The reason it did not get the scrutiny it needed in the justice committee is that no one thought charities or sporting organisations would be covered. People view gambling as online gambling, betting shops and in-person gambling. They do not look at the GAA, sporting organisations, schools or a hospice. They see people going into a betting office or on their phones gambling online.
There was some confusion about when discussions will take place on advertising and the watershed from 5.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. I do not think anyone on the committee realised that this was going to be a consequence of the Bill. These points are not aimed at the Minister of State personally. In the south-west region, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul raffled a car worth roughly €31,000 last year or early this year. That car was sponsored by the Tomar Trust, which was set up by Tom Cavanagh, God rest his soul. He was a great philanthropist but a very private man. Since he passed, the charity he set up has continued to donate funding to really good causes. The trust put up a car worth €31,000. Is it the case now that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul cannot advertise as a result of this legislation? It is not just that one case. We have the Marymount Hospice in Cork, which gets the majority of its money through fundraising. The Government should be providing that funding. It should not be up to people to go out and fundraise for people who are in the hospice or in palliative care, and their families. Another car was raffled last year. I think Cogans of Carrigaline sponsored that. We have big companies coming in behind good charities.
As I raised last week, another example is the Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind, which raffled a car. Without fundraising, where will all these good and decent charities that are doing tremendous work get funding?
Children's Health Foundation in Dublin raises money for children in Crumlin, Temple Street, Tallaght and Connolly hospitals, and it has to fundraise. I know that no hospital is being built. We can ask any of the families who have children in those hospitals. Without support and fundraising, those hospitals could not offer lifesaving services to those children.
Cork Women's Soccer had a draw for a car. As everyone knows, female sports have always been second-class activities in this country when compared with the men's and boys' sports. Here was an initiative to put forward a car to raise money so there would be a centre for women and girls in Cork to allow them to develop their skills. That organisation is not going to get money from central government. Who is going to fund it? The FAI does not have the money to do so. Such groups have to organise raffles. If the Bill goes forward in its current form, are all these organisations and groups going to be able to run a draw?
Mr. Vincent Ahern in my own club runs a lottery. I should declare that I won €25 in the lottery last Sunday night. I did not win the jackpot but my ticket was pulled out of the hat.
Good man.
Mr. Ahern and I had a meeting about coaching the other night. He does a lottery for the club every Sunday night, as does Mr. Tommy Collins and another few lads, all of whom are volunteers. I mentioned what was happening and Mr. Ahern could not believe it. He did not know about it. I was talking to people in GAA clubs over the weekend. I was talking to a club treasurer and I asked him if his club could operate without the €4,000 or €5,000 it makes through the Cork county board members' draw every year. He asked me where the club would get the money. We are only an average-sized club in a predominantly working-class area and that is gold to us. If there are restrictions on the county board draw, it will have a direct effect on all the local clubs.
This Bill is needed but, as I said last week, can we accept it with the unintended consequences? One of the first things I learned when I came up here is that legislation might be meant in the most sincere way. I take the Minister of State at face value in that regard. I tried to draft a number of pieces of legislation, one of which related to credit cards, and I thank the Minister of State for taking it on board. I remember going through that legislation and it took us a long time to get it right. That was only one piece of the Bill.
The Minister of State needs to look at this issue. Perhaps we have to go back to the justice committee because we do not want to make a mistake with the legislation. These are now global companies and we do not want them to be able to find loopholes when the genuine charities and GAA community organisations cannot. I know that gambling affects people in the GAA. I am a member of the association. Gambling affects younger men especially. I recognise that. However, I do not think that buying a lottery ticket or a ticket for a draw or raffle for a car or a house is where the addiction and gambling harm is coming from. It is coming from online and in-person gambling.
This measure makes no sense at all. It is unnecessary and foolish in the extreme. It is politically mad and counterproductive. The feedback I have got from organisations in my county is that they are absolutely amazed and cannot understand it. They are asking me if this is for real. They are asking if it is possible that this will get through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a highly contentious issue that needs to be addressed. It is as simple as that.
All of us who work in rural Ireland and who understand how it gets by appreciate how difficult it is to get people to volunteer in voluntary organisations, to ask them to give up their time, make a commitment and make the sacrifices necessary to keep organisations afloat. Those organisations are depending on local people to support them. Every GAA club, voluntary and community organisation, charitable organisation and sports club depends on fundraising. They depend on advertising that fundraising and need that money to stay afloat.
The umbrella groups for all of those organisations have rejected this measure. They have highlighted its impact and the consequences for their organisations. We would be totally tone deaf not to accept and realise that. I do not know how this ever got into legislation. I am sure the officials sitting beside the Minister of State brought it forward, or someone in his Department did.
It was a recommendation of the justice committee.
People are saying it did not come from the justice committee and that this measure was never intended to be a part of the Bill.
In my county of Tipperary, there is a hospice movement. I was recently at a fundraising venture that raised something like €200,000. That would not have happened if this restriction was in place. It would be outside the law and could not happen. The work the hospice movement does in Tipperary is incredible in the amount of solace, comfort, support and love it gives to people at times of difficulty. After that event, I spoke with an official in the Tipperary hospice and he told me that it gets no money from any institution of the State. It is completely voluntary. It has to raise €450,000 every year to keep the service in place. We are talking about impeding that by putting a measure such as this into the Bill. It is counterproductive and makes no sense whatsoever. We need to eliminate this from the Bill and ensure that we bring back a sensible amendment to address the issues that have been raised.
I agree in principle with the Minister of State's Bill because we know we have a problem with gambling in the country. However, as all the previous Deputies have said, the proposal in the Bill is wrong. It is not going to work. I ask the Minister of State not to ask us to vote for the legislation tonight if there is something wrong with it. It is fine for the officials but these voluntary organisations and everybody else are out there raising funds.
Last Saturday night, I was at a function for the Westport GAA club. It had to raise over €100,000, and did so through an Oscar-type night. That is happening all over the country every day.
I was previously Minister with responsibility for sport. It is fine that we do not have the resources or the money. When I was the Minister, certain people from the health board came in to say clubs could not have drink sponsorship. There was €33 million of a gap and clubs had to find alternative sources because they knew we, as a Government, did not have the money to deal with it. Here we are again now bringing in legislation that is going to affect charitable and sporting organisations. I ask the Minister of State to give us an assurance that he will bring in an amendment to deal with this issue. I do not want to have to vote in favour of this Bill in half an hour or an hour's time when I know it is wrong. We already know it is wrong. All the speakers here know it is wrong. I will vote with the Government but I do not want to be put in that situation. I ask the Minister of State for a guarantee that this amendment will be put in place to ensure an exemption for sporting and charitable organisations.
If we want to be honest, what has gone wrong in this country is that governments have gone crazy. Woke is in politics and politicians. It is in Europe and in the public service. The Government is going to make a police state of this country. People must be able to live and to make decisions for themselves. We cannot have the Government telling people what is right and what is wrong. We need people to be able to use their own brains and minds. We need them to know they can make decisions.
I heard what was said by previous speakers. Soccer, rugby and Gaelic clubs are out there on a Saturday night with their volunteers.
They do not get recognised for the work they do and now we are going to take away the funding for the voluntary organisations. If we do that, we are creating a big problem.
I want to vote with the Minister of State, but I want a guarantee from him tonight that we are going to get an amendment that will actually deal with the problem we have all identified. In fact, he will not believe it; all these people tonight are raising this, but I raised it the parliamentary party meeting last week. I said I could see there was going to be a problem with the Bill that is being discussed now and that was being discussed at the time with the parliamentary party, and that we must make sure we are going to deal with it and not hurt voluntary organisations.
People are out there trying to raise money for their clubs and trying to keep young boys and girls out of trouble and in sport. The Minister of State knows there is a problem there now. I know he is a reasonable man and a sporting man. I know he comes from a sporting county. I want him to give us a guarantee that he will bring in the necessary amendment that will exempt both charitable and sporting organisations so that they will not be affected in any way by this Bill that is coming through the Dáil.
This issue was brought up with the Minister of State during a previous debate the other night in this Chamber. I was quite surprised how strident he was in sticking to his guns. I echo what my colleagues have said today. I made a point to the Minister of State the other day regarding the kinds of voluntary organisations that are involved in raising money. I specifically pointed out to him that Waterford GAA last year raffled a house in Dungarvan and from the proceeds of that raffle, which was nearly €600,000, all of that money has been returned into youth development and player development in the GAA. Prior to that, I think the most they ever raised in any year was approximately €150,000. I made the point to the Minister of State in that exchange that the people who buy a ticket for €100 are not problem gamblers. They know exactly what they are doing. They are making a contribution to whatever the fund is because of altruistic emotion on their part. They are supporting the GAA or their hospice. They are supporting whatever local group or youth organisation it is.
I ask the Minister of State at that time to look at this amendment seriously. I think he is hearing now across the House the very significant resistance to this aspect of the Bill, not because people are not worried about problem gambling and not because people are not aware of the issues that are in households, but because the Government has overstepped the mark, as I said to the Minister of State the other day, in terms of what it is proposing here. This is a ludicrous amendment that needs to be taken away from the legislation. I ask the Minister of State to do that.
I reiterate that in terms of the banking card block, which I brought up the other day and which has been brought up in this House, the banks said over two and a half years ago that they were willing to bring in such a block for those recovering from problem gambling. That has not been addressed in this legislation. On the one hand, the Minister of State is bringing in measures that nobody requested, and that people are telling him are not going to work and on the other hand, he will not bring in what is there, what should be done and what has already been legislated for in the UK. Again, I would echo what my colleagues have said. The Minister of State should bring back better legislation in terms of this issue.
With regard to the comment that no one requested it, it was requested unanimously by the Joint Committee on Justice that a ban on advertising be brought in with no exceptions. I listened to the members from the justice committee who have addressed it here in the Dáil. I have listened to TDs outside of the justice committee who have addressed it in this Chamber. I have listened to members of Fianna Fáil and, indeed, Deputies from Fine Gael who have come forward to talk to me about the situation and the issue.
The challenge has always been that once we bring in a ban on advertising and create exemptions, we have to ensure those exemptions are not open to abuse. Nobody has a problem, having looked at the situation. If this had been brought to the attention of the Joint Committee on Justice, it would have recommended an exemption for the charity and sporting sectors.
The charity and sporting sectors are currently covered by gambling legislation, and it is in their interests that they continue to be governed by it to prevent bad actors. Our challenge with bringing in an exemption for the charity and sporting sectors is that we would have the potential for very foreseeable significant abuse of that by bad actors. I gave an example about an hour ago when I clearly indicated that we will be bringing forward amendments to address it. For example, someone could set up a darts club and call it the "XX Sports Club", with XX being the name of a gambling company, and then take advantage of the exemption for the charity and sporting sectors. Deputy Doherty spotted that potential abuse as well. Therefore, what we want to do is have a situation whereby the charity and sporting sectors are exempted, and it is not open to abuse by bad actors or others. Deputy Murphy brought forward an amendment that came close, but I need to make several changes to it to be able to get it across. Sinn Féin also engaged in bringing that forward. Deputies from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil brought forward ideas as well. I am working with the officials, who have gotten some abuse here, totally unfairly, because they were the Joint Committee on Justice's recommendations, not theirs. They are actually the ones who have been working very hard to find that solution and we believe we have that solution now. We will be bringing amendments forward in the Seanad to exempt the charity and sporting sectors completely, but with protective amendments to ensure the exemption cannot be abused by those bad actors. That is what we will be doing. The amendments in the Seanad have to come back to the Dáil, so they will be discussed again.
I will point out to Deputy Healy-Rae that while Labour Party, Social Democrats, Sinn Féin, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Deputies all brought forward ideas on how to solve this, he did not. He had a chance to bring forward amendments and he did not. He stood up and had a good old rant for himself.
Where are the Fianna Fáil Deputies the Minister of State is talking about now? They are not even here in the Chamber.
He did not bring forward any proposals or solutions.
The Minister of State should give over his codding-----
We will do it through the Chair, please.
It is important all those clubs know that.
----- and pointing the finger.
It is important all the clubs know that.
The Minister of State is making a hames of this.
Constructive elements help.
He is making an absolute hames of it. The Minister of State wants us to vote for a pig in a poke.
I thank the Deputy. We are over time.
Give over the codding and the politics.
Táimid thar am.
That is why you are where you are.
Táimid thar am. Táimid ag bogadh ar aghaidh anois. Tá dhá nóiméad againn arís más mian le héinne teacht isteach. Is anybody indicating to come in?
He is talking about the Fianna Fáil TDs, and they are not concerned about it at all.
I call Deputy Mattie McGrath.
I am glad I was here for the Minister of State's freagra earlier. I do not think he has any answers really. He is telling us that it came from the justice committee, and it did. God help the migration pact that is before the justice committee. Is the Minister of State telling me the justice committee unanimously came up with this without opposition or with no discussion? It is a very poor outlook for other similar issues that are before that committee. We saw it yesterday when we had NGO after NGO take up time and tell us all how well off the country is.
These clubs, organisations and hospice groups are struggling morning, noon and night. Circle of Friends in Tipperary, which has been there for 20 years and has a brand new building, gets some Government grants, but people raise funds for it every week. It gives help, care, support and solace to people with cancer and in cancer recovery. Many groups will not back the organisation. It would not exist only for the fundraising. These people are put to the pin of their collar trying to live. However, the Irish people are generous and always have been. They give willingly to good causes. Sometimes, there are bad actors, as the Minister of State said, but people give willingly to good causes. They are in every parish and community. They are almost in every hamlet, but a number of them are certainly in every parish. We need to continue that tradition and spirit of care - ní neart go cur le chéile. We need to have that for our young people to pick up, and they are.
The young people sell and buy a lot of tickets. They might not have much money, but they buy them, and they love to win as well. That is not gambling. I told the Minister of State this last week. The problem is that gambling is with them the whole time, whether it is in the bedroom, in the school or following them in the car. That is what the Minister of State must go after. He is going after little fish here, and they are the fish that provide. It is like the gospel parable of the loaves and the fishes; it is a miracle. They do miracles to keep clubs afloat and keep people having a decent modicum of living and enjoyment.
I do not want to be confrontational or get into an argument. I sat in for some of the justice committee because my remit is addiction, recovery and well-being. It is very important that this Bill is right. At no stage did anyone feel - maybe I am wrong here - that this would affect sporting organisations and charities. That was never the intention. This was for the likes of Paddy Power, Ladbrokes and the big global companies that are using every trick in the book. They are advertising at the moment using top international stars. The quality is actually film quality. There is a certain amount of advertising on social media. My own children got it during Covid. Young people are being targeted.
To clarify, when this came up at the justice committee, there was never a reference to charities or sporting organisations. I asked the Minister of State a question earlier regarding the amendments he is bringing forward in the Seanad. For all the groups I mentioned that were getting €20,000, €30,000 or 40,000, will that amendment cover all of them with regard to advertising so that they will not be affected?
If we had sight of the amendments the Minister of State is going to bring forward, it might ease Deputies' concerns. At this time, I believe Deputies are very concerned about voting for this tonight because every GAA club and charity in their constituencies and in this State will be terrified of the consequences of this Bill.
The previous day I contributed on this, I said to the Minister of State that he had engaged, unwittingly, in the law of unintended consequences. I understand where the legislation is trying to go and what it is trying to achieve but I believe, as has been highlighted by others, there was not awareness of what exactly was being proposed and the impacts it was going to have, particularly with regard to charitable and sporting fundraising.
On the point the Minister of State made about him being now willing to bring in amendments to try to address that, it is still a large ask of people in this House to send this back to the Seanad to await amendments to come back. Will the Minister of State give some scope or highlight what it is he proposes to amend in the Seanad, and will he give a guarantee that this is going to come back to the Dáil to be debated in future before it is enacted?
It is very unfair of the Minister of State to point the finger at the Independents. I raised it with him here last week, and we know what happens with the amendments and all the different issues with them. When we put in submissions or amendments, the Government invariably rules them out, one after the other. That is what happens.
How could you put down an amendment to this anyway? Gambling and fundraising are two different things. They should not be entwined at all. This must be taken out of it. If the Minister of State is telling us that he is going to send it to the Seanad and that he will put in amendments and at the same time he expects us to vote for it here tonight, he has another guess coming to him. We spoke against it last week. At least Deputy Ring from Fine Gael spoke against it tonight but where are the rest of the Minister of State's comrades? He is pointing up behind him and he does not even know they are not there.
How nonsensical is the Government getting? It is just not with it at all. To think that fundraising and gambling are entwined, the Minister of State is off his rocker altogether. The poor clubs are volunteering and trying to raise funds to take children to matches, get jerseys for them and all the different things that are needed to help them, and then the Government tries to stop them or put some block on then. God almighty, enough harm is done without trying to do this. The Government is hitting the heart of both rural and urban Ireland. There town clubs are trying to survive as well. I am asking the Government to defer this until it gets its act together and brings it in here before us. We will see what we will do with it then when we see what the Government is proposing. I am not voting for this and our group is not voting for this.
I thank the Deputy. Personal comments are not appropriate.
I have nothing at all to apologise for. They have gone far enough. They are away with the fairies, the whole bloody lot of them. Everything they are at they are making a hames of it.
I ask the Deputy to do me the courtesy of listening to me. It is not appropriate to make personal comments. It does not help the debate and it does not strengthen the argument.
We are-----
I am moving on to Deputy Verona Murphy.
When this Bill was raised initially, I supported it to get it across the line so we could find out exactly what it entailed. I come from a huge sporting county, of all sports and none, especially horses, dogs and sporting clubs. At the moment, the Government is making announcements about all and sundry that it can get out before the election with regard to grants that are going to be provided to many of our sporting clubs and community centres. Many of those grants are also going to have to be subsidised by clubs raising money and funds to get their projects over the line. A huge amount of community effort will go into it.
I was not aware that this was going to actually impinge on charities, especially one that I would support every time I get the opportunity, and that is the Jack and Jill Foundation. I had a very heartfelt email from it and I have consulted the people I speak to in Wexford. Everybody is against this. It has particularly been pointed out to me that political party fundraising is not affected by this Bill. That is completely disingenuous, and I do not know how the Minister of State could sit there and have a debate with Danny Healy-Rae when he knows that his own party is not going to be affected in its fundraising efforts by this Bill but the Jack and Jill Foundation will be.
Shame.
For that reason, I do not think I need to say any more but I will not be supporting this Bill further.
Is the Deputy forsaking her second contribution?
Yes. I thank the Leas Cheann-Comhairle.
I thank the Deputy. We will let the Minister of State conclude. As the proposer, he has two minutes.
I thank the Leas Cheann-Comhairle. I think the particular amendment we are discussing has long been forgotten about at this point, but anyway.
The Minister of State might remind us.
I am going to address this and make the point for a third time. The recommendation for a complete ban on gambling advertising during the watershed was the unanimous recommendation of the justice committee. Charities and sporting organisations have been governed by gambling legislation, when they are carrying out gambling activities such as lotteries and draws, for the past 70 years. Nearly everything in this legislation is a carryover from the existing legislation. Charities are not equated with the commercial industry at all and they are governed very differently in this legislation. Any charity or club that has been running lotteries up to now would always have to get permission from the superintendent or the District Court, depending on the amounts.
I take the points from the Deputies that the members of the justice committee probably did not turn their minds to the charity and sporting situation, but nonetheless, it is covered in this legislation and was covered in the previous legislation. That is why we have acknowledged the concerns from the Deputies that there needs to be an exemption for the charities and sporting organisations. I am very struck by the members from that committee who have made that point in that constructive manner. That is why I am proposing to bring, in the Seanad, a complete exemption for charities and sporting organisations to allow them to have no limit with regard to the advertisement ban. It simply will not apply to them. However, we have to bring in safeguards. As I have said, it is wide open to abuse if you simply give an exemption to charities and sporting organisations. Bad actors can come into the charity and sporting sectors and abuse that exemption. We have to protect the charity and sporting sectors from those bad actors. It is not as simple as simply removing the exemption.
What about the political parties?
They are governed under different legislation, as the Deputy knows full well. We will be bringing amendments in the Seanad to exempt charities and sporting organisations, and I again thank Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, Deputy Catherine Murphy and the Social Democrats, and the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil TDs who have all brought forward ideas on this and how it can be done. I also thank the officials who have been working hard to find a way to give those exemptions and to put those protections in there.
I want to briefly touch on a couple of things Deputy Doherty raised because they are important. He raised the issues about the premises, which I addressed last week, and the timelines. Deputy Murphy raised the timelines issue as well. These are all carried over from the existing legislation. I acknowledge that the challenge is they were probably honoured in the breach, and we are not fixed on those. They can be amended with respect to the premises so that people can raise money off site, and of course with regard to the timelines as well. They are a carryover from what is there but I acknowledge they have probably been honoured in the breach, so we can amend it.
This gambling legislation is crucial. Gambling is destroying people's lives every day. The idea that we would not pass gambling legislation is absolutely horrid and would be a failure of this Parliament. However, we can work constructively with those who come forward with good ideas and find solutions to where there are problems. That is what legislative scrutiny is about - finding the unintended consequences, as Deputy Gould mentioned, and finding solutions to them. That is what we are doing in a constructive manner. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
We have allowed a good discussion on it and a lot of flexibility.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 58; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Canney, Seán.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Mattie McGrath and Michael Healy-Rae.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 109, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Obligations on licensees in relation to advertising: general
138. A licensee shall, in advertising relevant content or causing another person to advertise relevant content on the licensee’s behalf, comply with obligations imposed in relation to advertising under this Part and, where applicable, by the applicable regulations.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 109, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Regulations regarding advertisements
139. (1) The Authority shall, having regard to the matters specified in subsection (3), make regulations requiring licensees to include certain matters in advertisements relating to relevant content.
(2) The Authority may, having regard to the matters specified in subsection (3), make regulations—
(a) subject to section 139, prohibiting the inclusion of certain matters in such advertisements,
(b) subject to section 141, prescribing the times, places and events at which advertisements relating to relevant content may be shown,
(c) having regard to the medium through which such advertisements are shown, prescribing—
(i) the frequency with which such advertisements may be shown or broadcast, or
(ii) the duration of such advertisements.
(3) The matters referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—
(a) the level of participation in different types of relevant gambling activities in the State, including excessive or compulsive gambling,
(b) any expert research available to the Authority in relation to factors that may increase or decrease excessive and compulsive gambling and the means to address such gambling, and
(c) the need to prevent children from gambling.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2)—
(a) regulations made under those subsections may be expressed to apply generally to advertisements or may make different provision for different advertisements by reference to any or all of the following:
(i) the type of gambling licence held;
(ii) a particular category or categories of relevant gambling activities, relevant gambling products or relevant gambling related services being advertised;
(iii) the medium through which advertisements are made including the medium of an audiovisual on-demand media service, an on-demand sound service communication, a social media service, a video-sharing platform service, a website, an app, television, radio or print;
(iv) in the case of regulations made under subsection (2), a specific place or event or category of places or events,
(b) regulations under subsection (1) may require any or all of the following information to be included in advertisements:
(i) the name and contact details of the licensee who is providing the relevant gambling activity and the type of gambling licence held;
(ii) a statement that children are prohibited from participating in relevant gambling activities;
(iii) a warning of the risk of excessive or compulsive gambling and the consequences of such gambling;
(iv) details of where information may be found on the risk of excessive or compulsive gambling and how to address such gambling;
(v) details of where support services are available in relation to excessive and compulsive gambling;
(vi) an explicit statement that the activity is a relevant gambling activity in respect of which a person may make a relevant payment without obtaining anything in return,
and
(c) where regulations under subsection (1) require any or all of the information referred to in paragraph (b) to be included in advertisements, such regulations may, having regard to the medium through which such advertisements are made, prescribe how the information is to be included in the advertisements, including the size, colour and font type that is to be used in giving the information.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 109, to delete lines 16 to 36 and substitute the following:
“Advertising by licensee by means of audiovisual on-demand media service or on-demand sound service
138. (1) Subject to this section, a licensee shall not advertise relevant content, or cause a person to advertise relevant content on the licensee’s behalf, on an audiovisual on-demand media service or on an on-demand sound service to another person (in this section referred to as the “intended recipient”) unless—
(a) the intended recipient has an account with the service concerned, and
(b) the licensee complies with the applicable regulations.
(2) A licensee shall not be taken to have contravened subsection (1) where—
(a) an intended recipient does not have an account with an audiovisual on-demand media service or an on-demand sound service, and
(b) as part of the content delivered by that service—
(i) a logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of the licensee displayed at a sporting event is, in the case of an audiovisual on-demand service, visible to the intended recipient of that service, or
(ii) details of the sponsorship by the licensee of a sporting event are, in the case of an audiovisual on-demand service, visible, or in the case of an on-demand sound service, audible to that intended recipient of that service.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to advertising in respect of a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose where the maximum winnings for the activity do not exceed €10,000.”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 58; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Canney, Seán.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Danny Healy-Rae.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 109, after line 36, to insert the following:
“Advertising on social media service and video-sharing platform service
139. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and section 141, a licensee shall not enter into an arrangement (howsoever described) with another person for the purposes of advertising relevant content to a third party (in this section referred to as the “intended recipient”) on a social media service or a video-sharing platform service unless the terms of the arrangement ensure such advertising is provided—
(a) to an intended recipient only where—
(i) the recipient has an account with that other person, and
(ii) that recipient has subscribed to the licensee’s account on that service,
and
(b) in accordance with the applicable regulations.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to an arrangement in respect of a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose where the maximum winnings for
the activity do not exceed €10,000.”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 59; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Canney, Seán.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Danny Healy-Rae.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 109, after line 36, to insert the following:
“Advertising by licensee by means of electronic communication
140. (1) A licensee shall not advertise relevant content, or cause a person to advertise relevant content on the licensee’s behalf, by electronic communication to another person (in this section referred to as the “intended recipient”) unless—
(a) the intended recipient has given consent to receiving advertising from the licensee concerned by means of that electronic communication,
(b) the service provides an easily accessible mechanism to enable the recipient to stop receiving such advertising from the licensee concerned, and
(c) the licensee complies with any applicable regulations.
(2) A licensee shall not be taken to have contravened subsection (1) where, notwithstanding that paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection does not apply, as part of the content shown to an intended recipient by an electronic communication—
(a) a logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of the licensee displayed at a sporting event is visible,
(b) details of the sponsorship by the licensee of a sporting event is visible or audible.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to advertising in respect of a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose where the maximum winnings for the activity do not exceed €10,000.
(4) In this section, “electronic communication” means any electronic communication (including by telephone, text message or e-mail) other than an audiovisual on-demand media service, an on-demand sound service, a social media service, a video-sharing platform service or a broadcasting service.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 110, lines 2 and 3, to delete “A person shall not advertise, or cause another person to advertise, a relevant gambling activity” and substitute “A licensee shall not advertise relevant content, or cause another person to advertise relevant content on the licensee’s behalf”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 110, to delete lines 11 to 19.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 111, to delete lines 17 to 39, and in page 112, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
“Prohibited hours for advertising on certain media
141. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a licensee shall not enter into an arrangement (howsoever described) with an audio-visual on-demand media service, an on-demand sound service or a broadcaster for the purposes of advertising relevant content between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on the service concerned.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to an arrangement for advertising in respect of a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose where the maximum winnings for the activity do not exceed €10,000. ”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 58; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Canney, Seán.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Cian O'Callaghan.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 112, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“Application to High Court to direct cessation of advertising activity
142. (1) The Authority may, where it has reasonable grounds for believing that the advertising of relevant content by a relevant service provider contravenes an obligation imposed on a licensee by or under this Chapter, apply to the High Court for an order directing the relevant service provider to cease such advertising.
(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the relevant service provider and licensee concerned.
(3) On the hearing of an application under subsection (1), the High Court may, where it is satisfied that the advertising concerned contravenes an obligation imposed on a licensee by or under this Chapter, make an order directing the relevant service provider to cease such advertising.
(4) In this section, “relevant service provider” means an audio visual on-demand media service, an on-demand sound service, a social media service, a video-sharing platform service or a broadcaster.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 112, to delete lines 23 to 27 and substitute the following:
“(6) In this section, “branded article of clothing or merchandise” means an article of clothing or merchandise that—
(a) advertises a relevant gambling activity, or
(b) bears, in relation to a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence or a Business to Business gambling licence—
(i) the name of the licensee, or
(ii) a trademark, emblem, marketing image or logo of the licensee by reference to which a relevant gambling activity or a relevant gambling product or relevant gambling related service is provided or marketed.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 113, line 7, to delete “The Authority may” and substitute “Subject to subsection (6), the Authority may”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 113, to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following:
“(6) This section shall not apply to Segregated Customer Accounts.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
Amendment No. 91 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 115, to delete lines 24 to 32 and substitute the following:
“Offering inducement to gamble
148. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a licensee to whom this Chapter applies may offer the general public a benefit or advantage, the intent or effect of which is, either directly or indirectly, to encourage participation in gambling (in this section referred to as an “inducement”).
(2) A licensee may not offer a person or specific group of persons an inducement.
(3) A licensee shall comply with regulations (if any) made under subsection (4) in offering an inducement to the general public.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), the Minister may, following consultation with the Authority, make regulations—
(a) imposing conditions on the manner in which an inducement or a class of inducements is offered by licensees,
(b) imposing conditions on an inducement or a class of inducements, or both, that may be offered by licensees, and
(c) prohibiting the offering by licensees of an inducement or a class of inducements.
(5) The Minister shall, in making regulations under subsection (4) have regard to whether the inducement or class of inducements concerned would encourage or contribute to—
(a) excessive or compulsive gambling, or
(b) an increase in the level of participation in gambling in the State contrary to public policy.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), the Minister may, in making regulations under that subsection, impose different conditions in relation to different inducements or different classes of inducements.
(7) A person who contravenes subsection (2) or regulations made under subsection (4) is guilty of an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or both.”.
This amendment relates to inducements and promotions. On Committee Stage, I noted that I was planning to revisit sections Nos. 148 and 151 to address the matter of promotions and inducements. As published, section 148 prohibits a licensee from offering an inducement to a person to participate or continue to participate in a relevant gambling activity. The intention behind this section was to stop gambling operators from offering targeted incentives to individuals to encourage them to start gambling or to continue to gamble. Section 151 provides that regulations may be made to impose conditions, restrict or prohibit promotions that encourage a person to participate in a gambling activity. The intention behind this section is to regulate but not prohibit promotional offers made to the public at large. In summary, the policy intention was, and still is, to prevent targeted and individualised incentives to encourage people to gamble, but to permit in a regulated manner offers that are open to everybody. As published these provisions are similar and have been a consistent cause for concern and requests for clarity from affected stakeholders including the gambling sector, horse racing sector, media companies both print and broadcasting, and those in the advertising sector.
It is apparent that the policy intention as expressed in the sections in question has become unclear. This has given rise to confusion both with regard to their meaning and application. The predominant concern from stakeholders is that these sections are ambiguous and lack legal certainty in distinguishing between what is prohibited in section 148 and what is permissible but may also be the subject of regulations under section 151. The concept of what constitutes a promotion is, for example, causing confusion in the immediate advertising sectors in the context of advertisements, particularly in the context of who would or could be held liable for publishing an advertisement intended to comply with the Bill for fear of it being interpreted as a regulated, restricted promotion or prohibited inducement. Furthermore, my officials and the Office of the Attorney General having reviewed these provisions agree that they lack clarity as to their purpose, application and detail as to what constitutes a promotion and what constitutes an inducement. This uncertainty will hinder the ability to take or conduct prosecutions, or both, as a court or jury will be obliged to determine in any circumstance whether the matter of a case before them is to be considered a prohibited inducement or a regulated but permissible promotion. Given that breaches of these measures carry the possibility of custodial sentences, it is important that the position in the legislation, when enacted, will be clear.
Taking these considerations into account, I am of the view that the approach in the Bill should be clarified. I want to ensure people are protected from predatory practices and give the authority and the courts the tools necessary to address such practices unhindered. I also want to provide certainty to all parties affected by the legislation, and I do not want to inhibit licensees from continuing to engage in common market practices such as offering promotions to the public. On that basis, I have tabled amendment No. 91 to introduce a new section 148 on offering inducements to gamble. This will replace sections 148 and 151.
Subsection (1) of the amendment provides that a licensee may offer the public a benefit or advantage to encourage them to gamble. These offers are to be known as inducements for the purposes of the Bill, and, as an example, could involve a special offer or promotional activity when someone opens a new account with a licensee. The key here is that the offer is open to everybody and is not specifically targeted to take advantage of an individual's particular circumstances.
Subsection (2) prohibits the offer of an inducement that is targeted at an individual or seeks to target a specific group of people. An offer targeted, for example, on the basis of gender, age, ethnicity or at supporters of a specific sports team would be prohibited.
Subsection (4) provides that the Minister, following consultation with the authority will make regulations to impose conditions on how inducements may be offered, conditions on any particular inducement or types of inducements offered by licensees, or may make regulations to prohibit particular inducements or to prohibit types of inducements offered by licensees.
As per subsection (5), where making any such regulations, the Minister must have regard to whether an inducement or type of inducements concerned would encourage or contribute to excessive or compulsive gambling, or to an increase in the level of participation in gambling in the State contrary to public policy.
Subsection (6) provides that any regulations may be tailored to impose different conditions and different types of inducements.
Subsection (3) provides that licensees shall be obliged to comply with any regulations made under this section, and subsection (7) provides that any person who contravenes the prohibition of targeted or individualised inducements under subsection (2) or any regulations made under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to convictions - to a fine, up to five years' imprisonment, or to both at the discretion of the courts.
It is my belief that the revised approach reflects both mine and the Government's policy intention. It will provide certainty and clarity to all affected stakeholders and will enable the authority and courts to effectively regulate and deal with predatory practices to ensure people are properly protected when they choose to gamble.
Amendment No. 92 is consequential to amendment No. 91 and deletes section 151. The matters regulated by section 151 will be addressed by the amended section 148.
The Minister of State has provided some clarity. I seek further clarity, and forgive me if I sound pedantic in what I am about to say. I will stand corrected if I am wrong. I again ask the Minister of State to clarify section 148(2) which states, "A licensee may not offer a person or specific group of persons an inducement". Do I take it that the practical outworkings of that, where you have vulnerable people in particular who are addicted to gambling, are that offering free bets or a free €5 bet will now be outlawed, as it were?
Is that the case consequent to this amendment?
I praise the Minister of State and his officials for being specific in the language they use. The Bill provides that companies "may offer the general public a benefit or advantage", but the Minister of State is covering himself subsequently by saying "a licensee may not offer a person or specific group of persons an inducement". In other words, that ensures that unscrupulous operators could not parse out a category of vulnerable people and offer them the inducements, calling them a group or the general public, if you will. I want it to be clear for people who are watching the debate, as some fear was expressed heretofore about inducements being offered to individuals. Respectfully, I ask the Minister of State, through the Chair, to clarify again in his response that this will outlaw the practice of offering specific inducements to persons. The example I will use is the offer of specific categories of bets.
Notwithstanding the bona fides of the Minister of State here present in the lifetime of this Government and given his mandate, a subsequent incumbent of the office who is charged with this new regulatory body, a future Minister, may set aside any of these regulations. I wonder whether we in the House should put in place a cast iron guarantee that the regulations be made here on the factory floor, so to speak, and that they cannot be unwound at some future date because we never know who will be in office down the line. If we had a Minister with a more libertarian view, whose ear the betting lobby had or who could be influenced by the betting lobby, these regulations could be unwound quite easily. I wonder if we should take a more robust approach at this stage to ensure we outlaw once and for all the idea of the inducements, especially as they relate to individuals.
The Minister is correct about one thing, that there is a lot of confusion about this, not only about the ads that may be in general newspapers or newspapers specifically geared towards people who may place a bet. I have even received queries about offering a cup of tea in a bingo hall. Is that an inducement? Would it be prohibited? It is important to get this right. Before the Bill reaches the Seanad, would the Minister make the proposed regulations available or are they available already so that we could have a look at them?
Deputy Gould and I met various groups and I was struck by one group of family members of people who had taken their own lives as a result of gambling. Those adult children were specifically targeted by the gambling companies because they had a difficulty with gambling. There is very little trust among many people in gambling companies and whether they will try to get around the regulations. It would be ideal if we could see the regulations beforehand. To echo what Deputy Sherlock said, would a free €10 or €20 bet during the week of Cheltenham, for example, be illegal if it was in a general newspaper or in such a newspaper as The Racing Post? Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify some of that.
I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. One of the requests of the groups and people I have met is that there would be a complete ban on all inducements, including free bets, free spins or that people get €20 or €30 if they sign up. It is my understanding, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, that the Minister of State said that specific people and groups cannot be targeted. I think it is 80% of the money gambled comes from 20% of people. I do not know if that figure is wrong but I think it is accurate. These major international global gambling companies know which people are likely to bet the most. I gather from what the Minister of State said that this would ban them from targeting those specific people or groups. However, the Government should go further. There should not be any inducements whatsoever.
My daughter, Aoife, turned 18 last week. If she gets an advertisement on social media, such as TikTok or Snapchat, about €20 or €30 of free bets if she joins a gambling company, it is money for nothing. Why would she not take it up? Then she is signing up, not only her, it could be anyone. As soon as they turn 18 they will be targeted. Everyone will be offered these free bets. I just want to check that.
What we have seen with advertising - I understand the Minister of State is trying to cover this with the advertising as well - is that the offer of free bets, the inducements, are a way of drawing people in. I have no problem with people gambling. My family and friends and the vast majority of people enjoy gambling. It is a form of entertainment. There is a big industry with horses and other people behind the scenes. That is not the issue. The issue here is about young people, vulnerable people, people at risk of gambling hard and people in the throes of addiction and giving an inducement to a vulnerable person.
The other problem is that people get inducements from all the companies. They do not just get one from, for example, Paddy Power. Ladbrokes offers inducements, as do all the different companies. People who might have had no interest in gambling sign up because they get these free inducements and then they have accounts. Once people have an account, the chances of them gambling increases. The vast majority of the inducements are targeted at people signing up to new contracts. Some are different, but the Minister of State needs to look at that. We need to protect people. I have no problem with people wanting to gamble, but I have a problem with these massive companies manipulating people by giving them free bets and them putting them on.
We had a good look at this and the original way we drafted it was complex. There was a lot of confusion about the definition of an inducement or promotion. Across the board people were saying that it would effectively be unenforceable and potentially, when you have that much confusion and different definitions people will find clever ways to get around them. We therefore reverse engineered it and went for a simple solution. If you are offering a promotion or inducement, it has to be available to absolutely everyone. Individuals cannot be targeted based on data held about them, on gender or on the sports club they support. They cannot be targeted in any shape or form. Inducements must be available to everyone. The next step would be to totally ban them. We are not banning gambling. It is a legitimate industry and therefore we have to allow an element of competition.
That is why we are not banning them completely. Promotions may be offered but they may not be targeted in any way, shape or form. We are also giving the regulator power to make further recommendations to tighten things up if there is abuse, even within that system. I am confident there cannot be a rollback because the law has been put in black and white and would have to be changed by primary legislation.
The only thing the regulator can do is towards tightening it up. It cannot be guaranteed that if one Minister tightens things up, another Minister will not loosen it, but it is not possible to row back on this legislation without primary legislative changes. I cannot envisage the House doing that. Certainly a Minister will not be able to do it on his or her own. That is the purpose behind this. I hear what the Deputy is saying but in the interest of competition among legitimate businesses there has to be an allowance for a certain amount of promotions. Such promotions have to be available to everybody, however. As long as anybody can drop in and get that cup of tea if they are offering gambling, that will be fine. I do not see the regulator handing out free cups of tea but who knows.
What the Minister of State is saying is that the primary legislation is very clear about inducements. It is worth reiterating because concerns have been expressed by people that a licensee may not offer a person or specific group of persons an inducement. The Minister of State has clarified that.
Will the regulations be available? When will they be available? If there were, for example, inducements or a free bet advertised in the Racing Post, would that be interpreted as targeting a particular type of person in that it would be a person who is interested in gambling?
I hear what the Minister of State is saying but people in addiction services, those who have family members affected by gambling and those who are in recovery tell us that these free bets, even if they are free to everyone, are a hook to get people into gambling. We have met with the people on the ground and that is what they have told us. The Minister of State made a point about giving companies the opportunity to be able to do promotions. He spoke very passionately last week about the issues we have with gambling. I am not sure whether he used the word "tsunami" but he certainly emphasised how serious the problem is. Why, then, would we allow these companies to offer free bets? If people want to gamble, they know where the betting offices are and where to gamble online. It is very easy to find. If the Minister of State went on his phone now and had a form of ID such as his passport or driver's licence he could be signed up to an online gambling account in a minute. I have my driver's licence on my phone and could probably set up an account with one of the companies within minutes.
Promotions encourage people and are a way of pulling them in. When you go on holidays and walk past a bar you see offers of free shots or two for one drink offers to try to get people in. This is the same thing. These free bets try to get people buy in, become a member and sign up to gambling companies. Once they do so, they are in. I hear the point the Minister of State is making in that he is trying to protect vulnerable people and those at risk, and I respect that. However we also need to protect young people and people who do not gamble. The minute a person turns 18 there are these inducements. A sixth year student, first-year college student, apprentice or person working in a café or restaurant could be offered a free €20 or €30 bet, and not just by one company but by all of the companies.
I certainly hear what the Deputy is saying. He is raising a legitimate concern. Gambling is a legitimate industry. It is an industry that causes damage and that is why we have provision for the social fund in the Bill and will raise a levy to compel the industry to pay for some of that damage. Many people bet very safely. I compare it to alcohol in the sense that a lot of people do it quite safely but there is always a risk. People are on a spectrum and they move along that spectrum. Someone who is an addict today did not start out as an addict. He or she probably bet safely to begin with. That is why we have to protect people and why this Bill comes very much from a public health perspective. This is why we are banning all inducements that are targeted towards people in any way, shape or form and giving the regulator power to go even further and make those recommendations.
It is the regulator that will make those regulations, by the way, so we will not have those regulations until the legislation passes. It is up to the regulator to make them. It is taking a balanced and proportional view that to completely ban all such promotions would create a situation where there is no competition in the industry at all. There has to be some element of balance and promotion to an industry that we are not actually banning. We are protecting vulnerable people but to take the step suggested by the Deputy would be a step too far and is not something we have done in many other areas. It is something that can be amended down the line but the regulator will have the power to bring further recommendations and tighten it up even further.
I again seek clarity about the making of the regulations. There must be some thinking or draft document, even if it is a very early draft. There must be some paper available on what the regulations would look like. As was articulated by Deputy Daly, if the Minister of State has already set out very specific asks or points in section 148, one would assume the Department would have at least draft regulations or some note on what the thinking would be on the regulations.
I would like to speak.
Everybody has spoken twice. If the Minister of State wishes to respond, he may do so.
The first important point is that the regulations cannot weaken the primary legislation. They cannot row back on the legislation; they can only tighten it. We are creating the regulator to make recommendations around the regulations. The regulator will carry out research, engage with vulnerable groups, engage with the industry and look at what is happening. If it feels the need for more regulations, it can make them at that point. This is about empowering the regulator as opposed to setting out what those regulations would be.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 116, to delete lines 37 to 39, and in page 117, to delete lines 1 to 13.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 121, to delete lines 13 to 37 and substitute the following:
“Application to open gambling account with licensee of remote gambling licence
161. (1) A person who has attained the age of 18 years may apply to a licensee of a remote gambling licence to open a gambling account for the person with the licensee.
(2) An application referred to in subsection (1) shall be made to a licensee of a remote gambling licence in such form and manner, and be accompanied by such documentation, as may be specified by the Authority.
(3) A licensee of a remote gambling licence shall not open a gambling account for a person who has made an application to the licensee unless—
(a) the person has attained the age of 18 years, and
(b) the licensee concerned has verified, in accordance with the means specified under subsection (4) or prescribed under subsection (5)—
(i) the identity of the person, and
(ii) that the person has attained the age of 18 years.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), a licensee of a remote gambling licence verifies, for the purposes of subsection (3)(b), the identity and age of the person who has made the application concerned where—
(a) the person provides the licensee with—
(i) a copy of a document that specifies the name, address and date of birth of the person and contains photo identification of that person, or
(ii) a copy of a document that specifies the name and date of birth of the person and contains photo identification of that person together with a copy of 2 relevant documents confirming the address of that person,
and
(b) the licensee is satisfied that the document or documents provided to the licensee in accordance with paragraph (a) relate to that person and confirm that that person has attained the age of 18 years.
(5) The Authority may prescribe additional means by which a licensee may verify the matters referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(6) A licensee of a remote gambling licence who fails to comply with subsection (3) is guilty of an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years, or both.
(7) In this section, “relevant document” means a document issued within the previous 6 months being either a utility bill, an insurance policy or a document issued by the
Revenue Commissioners or a Department of State.”.
With regard to amendment No. 93, on review of section 161 regarding the opening of gambling accounts some relatively minor issues were identified and this amendment clarifies the situation. The current requirement in subsection (3)(a) that the applicant must supply a "copy of a document that specifies the applicant’s name, address and date of birth and contains [their] photo ..." is too narrow. For example, a passport would have a name, date of birth and photo but no proof of address. This has been widened to include an alternative option of supplying a copy of a document specifying the applicant's name and date of birth and containing photo identification, together with a copy of two relevant documents confirming the applicant's address, with relevant documents being defined in subsection (8) as including recent utility bills, insurance policies or Government-issued documents.
The purpose of amendment No. 94 is to address an unintended consequence in the drafting of section 169 and to clarify the scope and application of the section. As published, section 169 of the Bill prohibits any holder of an in-person gambling licence from permitting a child to enter or be on premises in which a relevant gambling activity is or may be provided pursuant to the licence concerned. While this seems a common sense protection in respect of children and gambling, that is, not to let them on a licensed premises where gambling is or may be offered, the Bill, as currently drafted, has one unintended consequence. In short, the wording of the section, as drafted, refers to "enter or be on a premises in which a relevant gambling activity is or may be provided pursuant to the gambling licence concerned". This could potentially prohibit children from attending places such as schools, places of worship and other local organisations, including prohibiting children from entering GAA and football clubs, schools and churches, for example, running lotteries and raffles for fundraising purposes. It could be interpreted as prohibiting children from entering or being on the premises if, for example, a raffle or lottery is being held.
The prohibition could also cause an issue, for example, where a local shop or supermarket agrees to sell tickets for local organisations or charities for raffles, and in such a situation a child would not be able to enter the shop or supermarket as the agreement to sell tickets would constitute the provision of gambling activity. While we would be extremely popular with many children around the country if we told them they could no longer go to school, that is not the policy intention of this section. Furthermore, it could potentially have a serious detrimental effect on the ability of charitable and philanthropic causes to fundraise.
In this context, I propose to amend subsection 1 to provide that the section on the prohibition shall not apply to holders of a charitable or philanthropic licences. I am amending the section to insert a new subsection 3 to provide that it shall be a defence for a person to prove that they were reasonably mistaken as to the age of a child in respect of whom the prohibition was breached.
Subsection 4 provides that the court shall consider the defence of whether a reasonable person would have concluded that a child in question was over 18 years of age, while subsection 5 provides that the standard of proof to be reached by a defendant shall be that applicable to civil proceedings, namely on the balance of probabilities.
On amendment No. 93, previously this provision applied to remote and in-person gambling. Will that remain the case or will this only cover remote gambling?
In the past, there was a lead time for signing up to a service. Will the regulations ensure that people cannot sign up to such services? Some people had a two or three-day period where they could sign up and open an account, and if they did not produce the right documents within 24, 48 or 72 hours, the account would be shut. Will people now be unable to open an account unless they have their details there and then? If that is the case, I welcome that. I ask for clarification.
Any lead time will be gone. People will have to prove their age before they can open an account. The intention is that this will apply to in-person and remote gambling. I will double check the wording. If that is not the case, it will certainly be amended to ensure that it is the case.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 125, to delete lines 29 to 38 and substitute the following:
“Obligation not to allow child on premises
169. (1) A licensee of an in-person gambling licence, other than a licensee of a gambling licence for charitable or philanthropic purpose that is an in-person gambling licence, shall not permit a child to enter on a premises in which a relevant gambling activity is
or may be provided pursuant to the licence concerned.
(2) A licensee who fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years, or both.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he or she was reasonably mistaken that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the child in respect of whom the offence is alleged to have
been committed had attained the age of 18 years.
(4) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it falls to the court to consider whether the defendant was reasonably mistaken that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the child in respect of whom the offence is alleged to have been committed had attained the age of 18 years, the court shall consider whether, in all the circumstances of the case, a reasonable person would have concluded that the child had attained that age.
(5) The standard of proof required to prove the defendant was reasonably mistaken that a child had attained the age of 18 years shall be that applicable to civil proceedings.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 156, to delete lines 25 to 27.
This is a technical amendment that deletes section 204(1)(h) and the requirement to make regulations concerning the publication on the authority's website of all information and documentation provided to an adjudication officer for proceedings before that officer. There is no reason and, indeed, it is not common practice, to publish all information and documentation provided as part of a regulatory investigation and there is nothing in the Bill prohibiting the publication of details of the outcome of any such proceedings, as would be common practice when it comes investigations.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 161, to delete line 28 and substitute the following:
“ “bank” means—
(a) a regulated financial service provider, or
(b) a bank outside the State;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 169, to delete lines 12 to 14 and substitute the following:
“
|
Gambling licence for charitable or philanthropic purpose |
lottery: no maximum game: no maximum pool betting: no maximum |
lottery: €30,000 per week game: €3,000 per game |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 169, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following:
“
|
Gambling licence for charitable or philanthropic purpose: once-off activity |
lottery: no maximum game: no maximum pool betting: no maximum |
lottery: €360,000 game: €360,000 pool betting: no maximum |
”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 58; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Denise Mitchell.
Question declared carried.
Cuirfear an Bille ar aghaidh chuig an Seanad anois.