Gambling Regulation Bill 2022: Committee Stage
We have received apologies from Deputy Ward. Deputy Gould is substituting for him. We have received apologies from Deputy Costello, and Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan is participating in his absence. We have received apologies from Deputy Niamh Smith. She is otherwise engaged with the RTÉ hearings, which are taking place in a special additional meeting of the media committee next door. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan is substituting for her. They are participating online for the time being but will be available if required.
This could be a lengthy meeting. There are quite a few amendments to get through. The Minister has tabled 150 or 160 and there are seven from the body of the committee. It is just after 4 p.m. and we are due to sit until 7 p.m. but with the option to go to 9 p.m. if required. I am hopeful it will not be required but it is a possibility. We will take a break, if agreeable to the members, at about 6 p.m. There will be a short ten or 15 minute comfort break and then we will regroup. I think that would be sensible to do.
The meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Gambling Regulation Bill 2022. Our committee performed pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill some time ago. The Bill has gone through the House and is with us for consideration of the tabled amendments.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, and his officials. We will now proceed with consideration of the Bill. We will start at the beginning with section 1. There are a number of groupings, which have been circulated, in terms of amendments. Members should have a copy of that for their convenience.
There are a number of amendments to flag for Report Stage. I am not sure if now is a convenient time.
We have about 160 amendments here, many of which are technical. There are a number of others which for various reasons we have not been able to finalise yet. I will flag them. If they are tabled on Report Stage, they will be circulated well in advance. I will indicate where those may be required as I proceed through the relevant sections. Broadly speaking, further consideration is being given to additional amendments to the Bill as follows.
A new Part will be inserted to provide for transitional provisions and arrangements. This is particularly complex due to the range of existing legislation to be considered, the number of State bodies involved and the importance of phasing in commencements of various Parts of the Bill in an appropriate and operationally achievable manner. The Department is undertaking detailed consultations with several Departments in this regards. There may also be consequential amendments, which provisions will depend to a large degree on the drafting of the transitional arrangements being settled. There are some outstanding policy and practical issues to be settled regarding advertising, which will require further examination and, particularly, clarifications.
On inducements to promotions, we are giving further consideration to these provisions in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General in order to ensure they are legally and operationally robust. There are no major policy changes but we need to get the wording exactly right and it is a challenging area.
There are a number of issues to be finalised in relation to amusement machines, which the Department and I will need to consider further in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General. This is around clarity of wording. This is a significant policy and we want to ensure there is no opportunity for manipulation and that the wording is correct.
On criminal investigation, prosecutorial and sentencing issues, my Department recently received observations from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which will require amendments to be brought on Report Stage, including in relation to the appointment, powers and functions of authorised officers, jurisdiction, legal privilege, search warrants, right of election, direction of prosecution and lines of responsibility. Most of these are minor but very technical. Unfortunately, we did not get the report from the Director of Public Prosecutions in time to have them ready for this Stage.
On bankruptcy, some minor amendments may be brought in relation to the provisions regarding ineligibility to become and disqualification from acting as a member of a relevant office or as an adjudication officer. Separately, we may need to make amendments to section 57 with regard to any unintended implications arising from connected persons and the consequences in relation to immediate cessation of office.
The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has requested several amendments on superannuation which will require more time to consider.
There are a number of issues under consideration in conjunction with the Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General regarding regulation of the tote.
For completeness and from a future-proofing perspective, it may be preferable to use a broader descriptor than “bank” in some provisions of the Bill in order to take account of the wide range of financial institutions operating in the market.
Regarding the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021, while the Bill contains the Irish language version of the name of the proposed new regulatory body, we are considering what Irish language amendments, if any, are needed. We are likely to need to amend or add some definitions in section 2, "Interpretation", or elsewhere in the Bill.
We may need to amend section 9 as we identify more acts or statutory instruments that need to be repealed or revoked. We will need to make some further amendments of a technical nature, including a section 64 prohibition on purchase of gambling products or gambling-related services. We may need to amend section 70 to ensure it does not create a loophole for any business-to-business operators that might seek to avoid the legislation.
On obligations on licensees to maintain records and accounts, an amendment may be needed to bring further clarity regarding record-keeping in relation to segregated customer accounts. On the obligation not to allow children on premises, there may be a need to amend section 169 in light of amendments to be made with regard to amusement machines to ensure children are protected.
My officials and I are reviewing the provision in the Bill relating to sponsorship to ensure the Bill does not inadvertently affect the ability of persons to make donations or contributions to charities. I intend to table amendments to ensure the outcome of an adjudication where there is a decision as to contravention in respect of a relevant obligation may be made public. It is my intention to amend these provisions to exempt or provide the authority with flexibility in assessing the suitability of a premises where in-person gambling activities are to be provided. This may result in amendments to other sections concerning temporary premises and attractions.
Section 170 contains an obligation not to allow cash withdrawals on premises. I may revisit the section to clarify its scope and applications. One or two possible loopholes have been pointed out and we want to ensure what we intend to do in the Bill is, in fact, done.
I thank the Minister of State.
We note those amendments the Minister of State wishes to flag for Report Stage. That is in order. Any member can do the same if they wish to do so as we go through the Bill. We have 218 sections and almost 200 amendments to get through. I hope that works for everybody.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendments Nos. 1, 73, 75 to 79, inclusive, and 93 and 111 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No 1:
In page 14, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“ “Act of 2013” means the National Lottery Act 2013;”
Amendment No. 1, which provides for a shortened reference to the National Lottery Act 2013 in section 2 of the Bill. The purpose of amendment No. 73 is to amend section 81 of the Bill to provide the authority may vary the maximum relevant payment and winnings limits in Schedule 3 to the Bill for licensees of a licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose. The amounts specified in Schedule 3 of the Bill are based on those only introduced in the Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 2019, which the charity sector is already compliant with and have been in operation for less than four years.
Section 82(2) of the Bill provides that the authority may vary to maximum relevant prize and winning limits in this Schedule by regulation, having regard to certain policies and principles. The Bill empowers the authority to keep such matters under review and can vary the amounts when the determinants are necessary. As such, the Deputies' amendment is already provided for in the Bill and on that basis, I ask if they are willing to withdraw it.
The purpose of the Deputies' amendment No. 75 is to amend section 86 of the Bill to provide that the authority may prescribe the maximum relevant payment and winnings limits for bingo as a separate and distinct gambling activity from lotteries. As the Deputies will be aware, bingo is classified as a form of lottery as per the decision of the High Court in Bolger v. Doherty 1963, No. 111 SS. Furthermore, I have considered Schedule 3 and its interaction with section 82(2) of the Bill and I am satisfied that the authority may vary the maximum relevant amounts permissible under a lottery licence. In considering the matters I have outlined to the committee, I am not convinced of a need to provide for special circumstances in respect of bingo as a separate and distinct activity from lotteries. However, I will keep the operation of the Act under review when it is enacted. If it becomes apparent or necessary, I will consider whether it is necessary to introduce a new licence for bingo as a distinct gambling activity. On that the basis, I hope the Deputies will not press their amendments.
Amendment No. 76 concerns section 88. The amendment has three purposes in relation to business-to-business licences. The first is to make the section clearer, easier to read and more understandable insofar as to who it applies to. Second, as originally drafted, section 88 applies to persons wishing to supply gambling products, equipment and-or services to licensees that are another licensee in the State or persons located outside of the State.
As currently worded, section 88(a) states that a person must have a licence to supply gambling products and services to another licensee in the State. This use of the term "another licensee in the State" could be interpreted that the holder of a business-to-business licence must be located in this State. This is not the Government's policy intention. It is the Government's policy intention that any person, whether inside or outside the State, who wishes to supply gambling products and services to a person in the State must have a business-to-business licence issued by the authority. This is the purpose of the newly inserted section 88(a)(i) by the amendment.
Section 88(a)(ii) maintains the Government's policy position that a person located in the State that supplies gambling products and services to any person outside the State must have a business-to-business licence issued by the authority to do so. This position is now more clearly set out by the amendment. This amendment will insert a new section 88(a)(iii) into the Bill to provide that any person who provides gambling products and services to the operator of the national lottery will be required to hold a business-to-business licence issued by the authority.
Amendment No. 77 is to section 89(3) of the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 89(3)(f) to provide that details of any conviction of the beneficial owners of a licensee are included in the register and to ensure consistency with sections 89(3)(d) and section 75 of the Bill in respect of relevant officers and the beneficial owners of a licensee.
I will now address amendments Nos. 78 and 79. The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that details of the convictions of beneficial owners of licensees will also be subject to any regulations made under section 89(5) and such details will not be publicly disclosed on the register as per section 89(7).
The purpose of the Deputies' amendment No. 93 is to restrict those who can apply for a charitable or philanthropic licence under the Bill to those who are registered charities with the charities regulator. I cannot accept this amendment, as the effects of it will be to prohibit every GAA club, football club and local sports club in the State from applying for a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose.
Section 87(4)(v) of the Bill provides that the advancement and promotion of sport shall be considered to be a charitable or philanthropic purpose for the purposes of this Bill. This criterion was specifically included in the Bill to ensure that local GAA, football and other sporting clubs would be eligible to apply for a gambling licence for charitable and philanthropic purposes provided for under section 87 of the Bill. This provision referring to the advancement and promotion of sport is not included in section 3 of the charitable purpose of the Charities Act 2009. Therefore, if only persons registered with the charities regulator could hold such a licence, that would preclude local sports clubs and organisations from being able to apply and hold a licence.
Like charities, the Government is aware of, and appreciates, the huge role that sports clubs play in our local communities, not least from a social and a health perspective and fully supports them. Both I and the Government do not want to prevent our local sports clubs from fundraising via lotteries, raffles and other gambling activities in that context, and therefore I must oppose this amendment.
Amendment No. 111 seeks to include the requirement of licensees of a licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose with respect to fund raising to be considered as a fourth criterion when making regulations under section 141 to regulate advertising. While I can appreciate the Deputies' intentions, I cannot accept the amendment. The criterion is too broad as it would require the authority to consider all of a licensees fundraising requirements when making regulations, not just those relating to gambling activities offered by such a licensee. The purpose of the regulation-making power is to regulate gambling advertising.
Second, as I previously outlined, the measures in the Bill are to protect children and vulnerable persons from being exposed to gambling advertising. Any considerations in making regulations to this effect cannot include consideration for the benefit of any one type of licensee and that basis or cannot accept the amendment.
I have listened to what the Minister of State has put forward. We have concerns from talking to the charities. It is important we get this legislation right and we do not hinder the great fundraising work charities do, while at the same time we must put protections in place. I am prepared to withdraw a number of my amendments but I reserve the right to resubmit them on Report Stage. From listening to the Minister of State's comments, it seems he is are taking a number of these issues on board. That is relates to amendment No. 73.
On amendment No. 75, I heard what the Minister of State said about bingo. He outlined a court ruling that found that bingo was a lottery. That needs to be looked at as well. Bingo is an institution. Members of my family have played it for years. For some people, it is their only social outing. I ask the Minister of State to give it further consideration.
Amendment No. 93 also relates to charities. We have concerns here and we hope the amendments we have brought forward will address that. Amendment No. 111 allows the authority to consider the needs of charities when making regulations relating to gambling advertising.
It allows the authority to consider the needs of charity when making regulations relating to gambling advertising.
We ask the Minister of State to take on board those four amendments.
The amendments are about making it easier for community groups, charities and so on to have events to raise funds for themselves. The Minister of State said he was going to keep them under review. If it is apparent that something needs to be done, how quickly would that happen or how quickly is it envisaged that would happen? This would have an impact immediately on organisations that have to fundraise. The Minister of State is saying he would review. I imagine the Department would be quite happy to let a Bill of that substantial size go after it got it passed and implemented. How quickly does the Minister of State see any review or anything like that happening? If the impacts of this can be felt quickly, how quickly can he amend it? Does an amendment require amending primary legislation or will it require amending regulations? What would his solution be to the problems that might arise?
Before I go back to the Minister of State, does anybody else wish to come in on these points? The two movers have spoken to them. I call the Minister of State.
In principle, this is primary legislation and we are able to put the key principles, especially around public health, within it and then establish the gambling regulatory authority of Ireland, which would have the powers to make recommendations to the Minister of the day on any changes it feels should be made. Depending on what those recommendations are, it could be done through statutory instrument or primary legislation.
If bingo was to be decoupled, that would require primary legislation because it comes from a High Court decision stating that bingo is a lottery. Bingo would have to be redefined in those circumstances. I agree with Deputy Gould that bingo is practised by many people, often as part of a group activity. We all know plenty of people who do it and enjoy it. It was a High Court decision on bingo and we are kind of stuck with it unless we change it. As we have written the legislation here, it should not matter that they are grouped together. However, it can be kept under review. It would, as I said, require primary legislation if it were to be changed at any time in the future and that would be a matter for the Oireachtas at the time.
I outlined my concerns regarding amendment No. 93. I know what the Deputy is trying to do, but it effectively would exclude sports and so on under that, so I will not labour that point.
With amendment No. 111, again, I see what the Deputy’s intentions are, but it could bring many more considerations into play for the authority. Many of those considerations, especially for the charity sector, are already governed by the Charities Regulator. We want to ensure there is not a duplication in what is being covered. Therefore, in those circumstances, those are our particular views on that.
Before I go back to the Deputies, I wish a ask a question on that. One of the amendments restricts the groupings that may be eligible for such a licence to those approved by the Charities Regulator. I forget exactly which amendment it was that puts that but it is one of the amendments in the group that was listed. Am I right in saying that, particularly in recent times, the definition within the Charities Act, certainly as interpreted by the Charities Regulator, has tightened and become quite narrow? Many what might be considered charitable works or actions are no longer covered, it appears, including human rights activity, social activism, progressive causes and other such matters. I recently learned that they are now being precluded under the operations of the Charities Regulator from effect. Would I be right in saying that that amendment would have the effect of denying all those the right to operate licences as well? Is that correct?
That is correct. The Charities Act 2009 excludes sports from a charitable purpose under section 2. It is included in this and what is in there is what is considered to be a charitable purpose. We have taken a wider interpretation of it to allow local GAA clubs, soccer clubs and community development companies that we would all be familiar with to be able to hold their raffles or fundraising events for their organisations. They tend to be relatively small one-off events. As the Cathaoirleach knows, they are held the length and breadth of the country. The amendment proposed would exclude all of those organisations from fundraising by way of raffles or any other type of gambling or betting into the future. Under those circumstances, we are opposing that amendment.
I take it that what the Minister of State is saying is that what is here particularly for the bingo legislation will take an amendment to this legislation if it is decided at some stage in the future that it is something that should be done. With the best will in the world, it will probably be three or four years at least before anything will be done in relation to it.
The Minister of State said the Oireachtas will have to decide that there is legislative change but surely the Minister of State or the Department will be the ones looking at the operation of the Act, seeing how it is going and deciding whether it needs to be brought forward as an amendment. That will have a huge impact and it will take a long time for that to take place. If it takes primary legislation to deal with it, I think it should be dealt with now. Perhaps the Minister of State could find a formula of words that will work for the Department to put forward. That is important for groups and so on.
Previously, the Minister of State said the Department takes a wide view of the legislative requirements in respect of human rights groups, fundraising and such. Am I right in saying that if I were objecting to that, I could take a negative view, take it to court, object to it, and I would win? Surely, the legislation should be made to work. If we decide that it is desirable that a human rights group or something like that should be able to fundraise by that method, surely the legislation should provide for that, rather than just relying on a fairly wide interpretation from the Department to allow that to happen.
I will offer comment on that because I introduced that question myself. As I understand it, it is slightly outside the current Bill, but to deal with the matter as it has arisen, the Charities Act prescribes what type of organisations can be deemed a charity and the Charities Regulator has the task of policing that. My understanding is that, certainly in recent times, the Charities Regulator has taken quite a tight definition. Largely, it is limited to the alleviation of poverty and education. I am aware of – I will not get into details because it would not be fair on them and it is not appropriate to the work of the committee today – some cases, well-known groups that are engaged in human rights activism and progressive causes, some at home and some abroad, which are not considered by the Charities Regulator to meet the definition of a charitable organisation. I take a different view and think the definition should be much wider. However, that is the view that has been taken by the Charities Regulator in a couple of cases. If the amendment was to confine the operation of this Bill only to organisations approved by the Charities Regulator, we would end up with a very small pool that could avail of it. It is not something that I would want to see. Perhaps the Minister of State has a different view.
I agree. Regarding human rights, under section 87(4), the advancement of human rights is one of the purposes for which one can apply to the gambling regulatory authority, GRA, for a licence in relation to this legislation. Therefore, it is wide enough and specifically mentions human rights, as well as the integration of those who are disadvantaged and the promotion of their full participation in society. There is a full list there. Arts, culture and heritage is there as well, as is racial harmony and harmonious community relations. We have taken a much broader approach than the Charities Act 2009. The reason for that is because these types of licences are currently used by an awful lot of community groups to raise funding for whatever – probably quite regularly sports, but it can be used for many different purposes.
That is on page 68 and it is in section 87(4). There are 14 different subheads setting out what may or may not be considered to be charitable causes for the purpose of gambling. As I said, it is somewhat outside of the scope of today’s proceedings, but I think the Charities Act should be updated to take this definition because it is much broader and wider. It is quite narrow at the moment and this one is much wider. The Acts are not consistent at the moment. My opinion is this one is to be preferred.
Following the High Court decision, bingo is considered a lottery under the 1956 Act. I am not aware of any problems with the law as written at the moment . What we will do with this legislation in that respect is simply carry over the existing legislation. If anybody has any concerns, they can bring them to my attention and we will look at them.
I have a few comments. While we hear what the Minister of State is saying, the reason we tabled amendment No. 73 is we were worried about the ability of groups to fundraise through charity lotteries. I will withdraw amendment No. 73 but reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 75 relates to bingo. I recognise the point made by the Chair but Deputy Pringle also made a relevant point. Every sporting organisation and community association in the country has bingo, not only due to the ability to use it to raise money for local charities and clubs but also from a community and social perspective. I am not sure whether the Minister of State knows this but in my constituency of Cork North-Central, numerous different bingo events have closed down either because of running costs or of not having enough people to create a big enough prize pool. I would hate to see anything else arising that would reduce the number of events further. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and bring it back on Report Stage, but I ask the Minister of State and the Department to see whether we can come up with a solution in respect of this matter.
On amendment No. 93, we had concerns about the Charities Act. We are also willing to withdraw this amendment and bring it back on Report Stage, if required. We will also withdraw amendment No. 111.
To be fair, the Minister of State seemed to take on some of the points we made. We are willing to work with him to try to find solutions if we can.
That seems a very sensible approach all round. I thank the Deputies and the Minister of State.
I second what Deputy Gould said regarding amendment No. 75. From speaking to people who work in the bingo industry and, in particular, local GAA clubs, including my local GAA club, Na Gaeil, I am aware that they do not make much money out of the bingo events they run. There is no consequential big spend on drink by the bingo players. In fact, the clink of glasses might interfere with some of the bingo players. They would not be slow in telling you if you were interfering with the playing of the game. Although it is defined as a lottery, they all argue that bingo is an exceptional type of game in that it brings many people together who might not necessarily get outside the door. Some 90% or 95% of them are women. It is a chance for them to get together. I am glad to hear that the Minister of State is reviewing it and it will be kept outside the proposed legislation. We will withdraw this amendment, given the open lines of communication with the Minister of State to keep these type of operations running in the community, particularly in County Kerry, of course.
I know that my late mother would have liked me to say to the Minister of State on behalf of all the older people - she used to call them "the active young people" because they were the active retired - that taking a special consideration of bingo because of what it is would be most welcome. It is very important. It has a special place in Irish society that is so important. Any special consideration that can be given would be most welcome by the general public.
I thank the Deputy. That is noted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 17, to delete line 17 and substitute the following:
“(a) a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill, a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill or a game that is presented as involving an element of chance, and”.
This amendment concerns definitions of gaming. We want to see a more modern look at that. We are seeing gaming constantly evolving, especially with younger children and video games. We all remember the pandemic and how everyone was at home. At the time, my daughters were aged 11 and 14. They showed me ads they were seeing on social media. Gaming is not currently covered by legislation. Although it is included in this Bill, we are looking to give it the broadest possible definition. The UK seems to have a broader definition that is more adaptable. All we are asking is that the Minister of State considers this amendment in order that we have the best possible description of gaming.
We want to delete the phrase "a game of skill or chance" from the Bill and align with the UK definition of "gaming", which is slightly more open to adaptation to keep up with modern times. We need to be conscious of how gaming will evolve, especially for younger children, as Deputy Gould said, through new video games and that kind of thing. That is in the proposed amendment. It is also important to try to align with legislation in the Six Counties to try to keep it on the same page.
The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to replace paragraph (a) of the definition of "game" in section 2, with the definition from section 6(2)(a) of the UK Gambling Act 2015. Section 2 defines a game as "a game of skill or chance, or partly of skill and partly of chance, and where a participant in the game may, having made a payment, win a prize of money or money’s worth". Section 6 of the UK Act states: "“game of chance" includes a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill, a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill, and a game that is presented as involving an element of chance, but does not include a sport."
The definition in section 2 is specific to the Bill and was prepared by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to be considered for use in the context of the entire Bill. I am satisfied that the definition as it stands meets the requirements of the Bill. I do not see a need to follow the approach of the UK legislation, which at this point is 18 years old, given the age of the Act and having taken the observations of the UK Gambling Commission on the operation of the 2005 Act into account during preparation of the Bill.
The Bill before the committee provides for a much greater and more thorough levels of regulation and enforcement than the UK Act. It is modern legislation that addresses our regulatory needs and provides the authority with the flexibility to do so. One of my driving principles with the Bill has been to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions and to ensure that our legislation will be flexible and agile in its operation, and will afford the same agility and flexibleness to the new authority in its regulation of gambling activities. On that basis, I cannot accept the Deputies' amendment.
We met with the UK Gambling Commission. The UK recently published a White Paper to update its legislation. We tried to take a lot of the learnings from its legislation, which, as I said, is 18 years old at this stage. We are satisfied that our definition is one that will better suit our situation, is more modern, and will suit the needs of our much wider-ranging legislation than that of the UK.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying and I know that the UK's legislation is much older.
Our point is particularly with regard to there being an element of chance. Gaming has evolved. It is nearly impossible to think about what will come down the line with regard to video gaming and online gambling. We are trying to allow the legislation to be as modern and advanced as possible so that new adaptations can be dealt with down the line. We ask the Minister of State to take it on board and, if not, we will press the matter.
We certainly want the same thing. When drafting the legislation we have been taking into account artificial intelligence, augmented reality and the blurring of lines between various needs. An example I regularly give is that, in 2010, there was a lot of commotion about a casino that was going to open in Tipperary and how it would encourage gambling. Now every ten-year-old has a casino in their back pocket. This is how much things have changed. We are satisfied we have taken all of this into account in our legislation. We certainly want the same things and there is no question about that. We are satisfied we are achieving it. I will certainly keep things under consideration.
One of our concerns is that whatever the legislation is, we would like to see an all-Ireland strategy to it. We will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 21, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(6) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act applies to gambling activities carried on by, or on the premises of, a private members' club in like manner as it applies to such activities carried on by, or on the premises of, any other natural or legal person or unincorporated body of persons.".
We are trying to get a bit more clarity as to what the Bill does and does not apply. Amendment No. 4 refers very much to the previous conversation about charities. It states, "This Act does not apply to gambling activities carried on, by or on behalf of an organisation that is a registered charitable organisation under the Charities Act 2009." The Minister of State has given a robust defence of the Bill already, but those in the sector are extremely worried about the cumbersome nature of what they will be expected to do to continue what they already do.
Let us be honest, when a hospital or hospice is running a draw for a car, a holiday or anything else, those buying the tickets have a very different dynamic. The prize is almost irrelevant. They are giving money towards a charitable organisation. Perhaps it is an organisation close to their hearts and they want to support a fundraising drive. If they get a prize out of it, that is not the intent of the dynamic. It is a completely different dynamic.
We are trying to broadly exempt any charitable organisation as specified under the Charities Act. We want to make it clear so we do not have a cumbersome scenario of an entity, organisation or charity that year in, year out has had a draw for a car or has had a fundraising drive that is well known and well recognised having to apply for a gambling licence to run what it has always run. Coming from the political persuasion I do, I find it quite upsetting and pathetic that a hospice, hospital or charity that provides basic facilities for vulnerable people would have to spend so much of its time fundraising, but that is the Ireland in which we live and the reality we face. The least we can do is to empower them and the least we can do in this discussion is not to put another layer of bureaucracy around what they are trying to achieve.
The Minister of State would accept that if I buy a ticket for a draw for St. Francis Hospice or Beaumont Hospital, it is not because I have that much of an interest in the prize. It is because I want to support that charitable entity. On this basis it is completely different from gambling as we know it. There is not really an online component. It is generally done in a very different way and what is actually happening in the dynamic between the gamblers, as we might call them, and the person organising the event is more about information flow and the necessity for funds rather than for the thrill, buzz or excitement of buying a ticket and the tension that may exist in people's lives before the draw is made. This is what we are trying to achieve. We want it to be absolutely clear in the legislation and we do not want to make much more difficult the lives of people who are trying to provide a service for very vulnerable people. Just exempt them from the Bill.
I support everything Deputy Ó Ríordáin has said on this. Many charitable organisations have to fundraise in this way. They have to organise raffles to raise vital funds and to build awareness about what they do and what the purpose is. I agree with Deputy Ó Ríordáin that we should not be in a situation where so many charitable organisations have to do this to raise vital funds for their organisations. Unfortunately, that is the system we are living in. We should be able to find a way to make this legislation work for them. What is even more jarring is that the national lottery has an exemption from this. The national lottery also raises funds for good causes and it has an exemption but vital charities in all our communities do not. They provide essential services. The Minister of State needs to find some way to make this work for them and to make it available for groups. Perhaps there could be a once-off registration with licensing fees from that point on. It has to be made workable for community organisations and small organisations that are doing something for charitable purposes.
I acknowledge what has been said by the other Deputies on this. It is very important to protect this access to fundraising for charitable organisations. To be fair, it is also important to note the world is evolving and changing. Some of these organisations have already moved so that people can buy and purchase online. It is an advance in their ability to fundraise and they have taken advantage of it. It is what any organisation trying to maximise its fundraising should do. We should try to have a balance whereby we make it as possible and protected for organisations to continue the fundraising they are doing. A lot of these organisations are very big and very well funded by the State in terms of what they receive. They are in a position to run additional fundraising. We need to make sure we do not overcomplicate it while, at the same time, building in the necessary protection, which is what the proposal is trying to do.
I thank Deputy Ó Ríordáin for tabling amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The purpose of amendment No. 3, which has not been touched on, is to ensure private members' clubs are included in the scope of the Bill and that such operations are regulated by the authority. While not explicitly provided for in the Bill at present, it is my policy intention that clubs will be included in the scope of the Bill. It is my intention to bring amendments to the Bill on Report Stage to provide for detailed transitional and stable provisions concerning multiple Acts and for consequential amendments to other enactments as well as for the revocation of all necessary statutory instruments.
Foremost among the transitional provisions will be those in respect of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 insofar as the Act relates to gambling. In this context I assure the Deputy that the operators of private members' clubs will be included in the scope of the Bill, and under the new authority's remit, there will be no loopholes or special treatment for them.
Like any other operator, they would be required to apply for a licence from the authority and would be subject to the regulatory measures provided for in this Bill. Taking this into account, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
In response to amendment No. 4, the Deputy's amendment and his rationale for bringing it raise a number of extremely important matters that I am happy to address. The effect of the Deputy's amendment is to provide that the Bill will not apply to charities registered under the 2009 Act, and that such charities will not be subject to regulation by the authority. I state, for the record, that I and the Government both recognise and appreciate the hard work of, and the services provided by, charities in the State. Their good work and contribution to society are immeasurable and incalculable. Each one of us and our families have benefited from their hard work in some way or another. I understand the concerns of the sector and those raised by the Deputy on their behalf. Stakeholder engagement is an important aspect of informing and developing new legislation, and hearing the views of all stakeholders in respect of legislative proposals that will affect them is a key aspect of a robust, transparent and democratic legislative process. In that context, I met with 14 individual organisations from the charity sector and with the Charities Institute of Ireland in late February to hear their views on the Bill. I have also received correspondence from over 40 charities in relation to the Bill that I have taken into consideration. I am very much aware of their concerns.
In the case of gambling, we are not regulating a behaviour; we are regulating an activity. The Government is not equating the charity sector with commercial gambling operators. It is important to note that the charities are already subject to regulation via the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, where they operate and promote lotteries. I also accept that the charities are regulated under the Charity Act 2009, and that not all charities rely on gambling activities as part of their fundraising model. However, those charities that do provide gambling activities must be properly regulated in that regard. This policy is not new and is a direct continuation of the measures, albeit modernised, provided for in the 1956 Act.
As the Deputy will appreciate, the Government does not regulate for regulation's sake. However, we all know of the rare but highly unfortunate examples where bad actors have abused their positions as charities for self gain. Many of the Members of the Houses will have sat on various committees looking into such sad, but thankfully quite rare, occurrences. Furthermore, we are also morally and legally obliged to ensure that someone cannot operate and offer gambling activities under the guise of a charity for the benefit of criminal activity. That is why members of the committee will note that I have placed such a strong emphasis on establishing the beneficial ownership and key personnel who could be potential licensees under the Bill.
It is important that charities and their activities are well regulated, but are also seen to be well regulated to ensure public confidence in them. That is what the Bill provides for. Indeed, many of the provisions of the Bill carry over the provisions of the 1956 Act, with which the sector is already compliant, and modernises those provisions. However, the effect of the Deputy's amendment, alongside the repeal of the 1956 Act, either by the Government or by the Deputy's later amendment, would remove all regulation of the sector and effectively result in a scenario where anyone could act as a charity without regulation, limitation or scope of accountability under the legislation. In that context, it is hugely important for us, as legislators, to ensure that proper controls are in place to prevent those that would masquerade as genuine charities and may damage the whole sector. I know that is certainly not the Deputy's intention, but the result of his amendments would be deregulation and the removal of those safeguards and protections that the charity sector have complied with for close to the past 70 years.
As I mentioned, I have had extensive engagement with the sector. I have listened to their concerns and will continue to do so. In that context, the members of the committee will see that I have brought forward two amendments, the intention of which is to address some of those concerns raised by the sector. In section 150, I am clarifying that the prohibition on sponsorship of events does not apply to the licensees of a licence for a charitable and philanthropic purpose, and in Schedule 3, I am removing the maximum relevant payment limits where gambling activities are provided for by the licensee of a licence for a charitable and philanthropic purpose.
I understand that the sector has concerns about the advertising watershed in the Bill. In May 2022, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice published its report on pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Bill, and recommended the introduction of a pre-watershed ban on all forms of gambling advertising without exception. I agree with the committee's decision. Consistent with the recommendation, section 141 of the Bill provides for a watershed prohibiting the broadcast of gambling advertising on television, radio and audiovisual media services between the hours of 5.30 a.m. and 9 p.m., with a focus on protecting children from the widespread proliferation of gambling advertising across these forms of media. Again, I think the committee was quite wise in that recommendation and I was glad to adopt it. However, this watershed does not mean that charities that hold licences for a charitable or philanthropic purpose under the Bill will be forbidden from all advertising before the watershed. The watershed will not hinder or prevent them from advertising or their ability to fundraise. They can still advertise, seek donations, ask for support and promote their fundraising activities in a general manner. The watershed only applies where they seek to advertise gambling activities.
Similarly, the Bill does not include a blanket prohibition on branded merchandise if the person holds a licence. A charity that is the licensee can still have its fundraising campaigns, seek donations and give out branded merchandise. The prohibition only applies where that merchandise advertises a gambling activity or includes the licensee's trademark emblem, marketing image or logo, by reference to which a relevant gambling activity is marketed or provided. Charities themselves state that people do not associate them with gambling, and the wording of section 142(6) reflects that assertion.
With respect to the obligations placed on charities when organising fundraisers, I disagree with the point. Charities, to date, have been obliged to comply with the obligations of the 1956 Act and, as I mentioned previously, the Bill reflects and modernises the application process for licence. I am repeating myself, but we cannot deregulate the whole sector and we are not placing extra obligations on charities. Charities are already subject to regulation with various State bodies, and gambling is no different. Many of the requirements that they are already compliant with in the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 are the basis for the licensing provisions in this Bill. That is not new regulation. We are already regulating the activity, but that regulation needs to be updated after nearly 70 years since the 1956 Act was introduced. With any modernisation comes an increased level of oversight and requirements. However, I am sure members will agree that we cannot, in good conscience, open the sector to abuse by a small number of bad actors by completely allowing the charity sector to step out of all gambling regulations and laws.
To address the point about the national lottery, the national lottery is not exempt. It has its own gambling legislation that is governed under the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The Bill is clear in that it does not apply to the operation of the national lottery but, as I said, the national lottery is the most common form of gambling in the State. However, the operation of the lottery is governed by the National Lottery Act 2013, and the lottery has its own regulator, the regulator of the national lottery, as well as regulation. It is not allowed to operate carte blanche without any oversight of its activities.
I recognise and appreciate the intention of the Deputy's amendment but I cannot accept it. As I have outlined, we are not penalising charities by regulating them. We are continuing the regulation that was introduced in the 1956 Act, but modernising and streamlining it. We cannot have a sector providing unregulated gambling activities. To do so would allow bad actors and criminality to take advantage. Such a scenario could ultimately destroy public confidence and trust, not just where a charity provides lotteries, raffles and other forms of gambling as part of their fundraising models but eventually in the overall fundraising itself.
Deputy Brophy made a point. What we are trying to do here is to strike that balance. The gambling regulatory authority of Ireland, in issuing its licences, will be taking into account the size and scope of what that licence is for, etc., and what its purpose is. I expect the authority will be quite understanding of the charity sector. At the moment, the charity sector is governed by the 1956 Act and the amendments thereto since, and by us having to go to the District Court or An Garda Síochána for various licences. It is important that they continue to be governed under the new modern legislation for their sake. We should also bear in mind that what we are doing here is bringing in legislation not to govern a sector but an activity, like drinking alcohol or road safety, to ensure that what people are doing is safe. There is a risk with all gambling. It is that activity that we are seeking to regulate, from a public health perspective, in this legislation.
Yes. I remind members, as I did at the outset, that there are 218 sections and almost as many amendments.
I know but we got a very elongated answer there.
We did. My remarks were not just aimed at you, Deputy, but at all participants in this meeting.
I am a bit troubled by the Minister of State's response, to be frank. He referred to bad actors and criminality at one point. If these charities are regulated by the Charities Act, it is the responsibility of that regulatory system to sort out bad actors or criminality, as the Minister of State has described. To be honest, those who work in the sector will be a bit offended to hear a Minister of State of the Government say that the rationale behind not omitting them from the Bill relates to criminality and bad actors The Minister of State used those words. We need to be careful here about what we are talking about.
On the Minister of State's point about the national lottery, anybody who spends any time in the post office sees a lot of vulnerable people, who do not really have the money, buying lottery tickets to try to win something they are probably never going to win.
There is a totally different dynamic with somebody buying a ticket for a car draw for an entity providing a service for his or her child who is unwell. The Minister of State has decided that because the national lottery is regulated by somebody else, it is outside the Bill, but the charities are regulated by somebody else so they should not be in the Bill either. The Minister of State, with the greatest of respect, has given an answer which I am troubled by and completely unconvinced by. I will withdraw the amendment on the basis of resubmission on Report Stage, but I respectfully suggest to him that he reflect on what the committee and the charities themselves have said. He said that he has met them or intends to meet them and that he understands what they are saying. If, however, there are bad actors in this space, this is not how you crack a nut. You root out the bad actors and deal with them individually and on the basis of criminality. If I were running a draw to benefit children with serious, life-threatening illnesses and I were told there was a new regulatory regime in place because there was an element of criminality in the area in which I operate, I think I would be pretty offended by that.
I do not want to be unfair to the Minister of State, and on Committee Stage we try to work collaboratively and do not score points, but I am troubled by his answer. I rarely make points of this nature, but a reflection by him and his officials on the intent of what we are trying to achieve here, I think, would make a better Bill and would help protect those who are trying to regulate this activity, as he quite rightly said. It would also ensure that those entities that need to fundraise are uninhibited by the passing of this Bill, which we genuinely want to support.
Before I go back to the Minister of State, a number of other Deputies have indicated so I will go around the table again and come back then for-----
I really hope I am not being unfair in my commentary.
I will take other Deputies' contributions and then go back to the Minister of State. I ask everybody to be as concise as possible in their remarks, whether the Minister of State or committee members. There is one rule for everybody. I also ask Members to indicate. There are two amendments under discussion, and I do not think it is entirely clear which one is being spoken to sometimes, so-----
I am happy with what the Minister of State said about amendment No. 3. That is fair enough.
Good. That is important to note.
I think it is clear that amendment No. 4 is the one we are concerned about. I listened to the Minister of State's very long, convoluted answer. One would need to see it written down and to study it, but a couple of things in it strike me. One is the talk about criminality and so on. That may not have been the Minister of State's intention, but it was mentioned at least six or seven times in his response, and that is a bit worrying. He said earlier - I could be wrong about this because I tried to see where this solution was and then he went on - that the amendment he has proposed to section 150 meets the requirements of what we are looking for. I could be wrong about that because, certainly, looking at section 150, I do not see how it can meet those requirements. Maybe I got that completely wrong - I am not sure - but something needs to happen. The fact that the Minister of State met a number of the charities some time ago - in February, I think he said, or something like that - yet they are still campaigning as strongly as before for these changes is a signal that there is something wrong, or is he saying they are just acting up? If the legislation is having this impact and they are still campaigning on it, there must be something that needs to be done about it. I urge the Minister of State to consider what he can do as regards the primary legislation to meet those needs.
A couple of things come out of this. First, I accept the principle that everybody is trying to find a way to enable the charities to continue to operate in the most effective way in carrying out their fundraising. I think we all want to see that. I accept, therefore, that what Deputy Ó Ríordáin proposes is designed to try to facilitate that, but I also fully accept the Minister of State's point, and it is important to make the point. I have done a lot of work with a lot of charities long before my political career as well as during it. Regulation is essential. The single biggest damage that can be done to the ability of charities to fundraise successfully in this country is not regulation but when something goes wrong and goes rogue and the impact of that. We spend an inordinate amount of time in the Houses of the Oireachtas investigating when that happens. It is the correct amount of regulation with the correct balance that allows both the funding activity to continue and the regulation in place to protect that. It is the protection for the 99.999% of charities that operate in this area 100% correctly. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the fact because anybody who does a quick read of the past 20 years of Irish history will know that if we do not have the proper regulation in place, people will take advantage of that. I think we are all urging the Minister of State to consider the most flexible this can be while still performing the necessary regulatory function.
The other small thing I will raise is about advertising. If an organisation is running something and, as Deputy Ó Ríordáin quite rightly says, where 99% of the purpose of the organisation is charitable, the ancillary service of providing a gaming activity is incidental to the organisation's purpose. If promoting that activity is blanket-banned, it creates a problem. I worry about ending up with the equivalent of the Guinness 0.0 advertising that supposedly does not promote anything related to alcohol. If a charity is running something, it needs to be able to promote it; otherwise, there is the risk of effectively, by default or by accident, ending the entire ability to fundraise because it cannot promote it, be it through traditional channels, social media or whatever else. I ask the Minister of State to consider how there might be some flexibility in that regard.
Maybe the Minister of State read out a prepared answer or the reasoning behind this, but his choice of words as regards criminality and bad actors in this section was a pity. His answer was really long-winded. As regards the point Deputy Ó Ríordáin was trying to make, I will use an example from Cork, Marymount hospice. It does a massive amount of fundraising every year. Its job is not fundraising; it is to look after people with end-of-life care and to provide them with the compassion and the health supports they need. Without fundraising, however, whether it is a night at the dog track, a night raffling a car or whatever else, it could not do its work. We have numerous charities. I was involved with a case a number of years ago in which a child had to be flown to Sweden because we did not have the facilities here in Ireland to care for him. Thankfully, now he is healthy enough, considering all his illnesses. There was a huge drive on the north side of Cork city, and we see that nationally where communities come together to fundraise to send someone to America, Europe or somewhere else for medical treatment that we cannot provide here or that the Government does not fund. If charities got from central government the funding they need to carry out the vital work they have to do, this would not be an issue. The Minister of State needs to look at this again.
We had a meeting a number of weeks ago with some of the charities, and within a couple of days a dozen of them came in to meet us because they were so concerned. Some of them described this as an existential crisis for their groups. As Deputy Gould said, various charities are picking up the pieces where State services may have fallen down. A lot of cancer-related treatments and equipment for hospitals are being provided. All those people's concerns are very genuine, and I ask the Minister of State to take them on board and to find some way around this for those organisations.
Does the Minister of State want to respond to those points?
The charities sector is currently governed and regulated for gambling and betting activities by the existing gambling legislation. The amendment proposes that the charities sector would step out of all regulation as provided for in the existing legislation that is being carried over into the new legislation. All oversight would be gone. The effect would be that if a charity were established in the morning for whatever purposes, provided it met the requirements of the 2009 Act, the gambling legislation, anti-money laundering legislation, potential offences provision and oversight would not apply to it. Nothing in this Bill would apply. There would be no regulation. Those are exactly the consequences. The amendment is quite simple and straightforward in that context. The charities sector is regulated at the moment. The proposal is that there would be zero regulation if a body were to establish itself as a charity.
In that context, I firmly believe we would have bad actors going into the charities sector. I am not saying they are there right now. I am saying we would see bad actors going into the sector. That would do enormous damage. I appreciate there might be difficulties around the edges about which people have concerns. However, I have outlined what the consequences would be of this particular amendment. That is why I am so opposed to it. It would not be in the interests of the charities sector if this were to happen. I certainly am not suggesting there are bad actors in the existing charities sector or anything like that. I am referring to what would happen if it were to step out completely from all regulation.
I ask the Minister of State to reflect on what has been said at the committee. I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 4 and amendments Nos. 6 and 7 as a consequence. I appreciate what he said about private members' clubs. That clarity is welcome and we look forward to the introduction of an amendment on Report Stage. However, the Minister of State will understand why people around this table might be a bit taken aback by the answer he gave and the terminology and phraseology used. He has clarified to a degree but we have a lot more work to do to make sure those who are currently fundraising can continue to do so into the future.
I take on board what the Minister of State said about the impact of this particular amendment. Is he satisfied that the Bill meets the requirements of the charities sector?
I am satisfied the Bill meets the requirements.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 21, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"Non-application of Act
3. This Act does not apply to gambling activities carried on, by or on behalf of an organisation that is a registered charitable organisation under the Charities Act 2009."
I withdraw the amendment with intention to resubmit on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6
Amendments Nos. 5, 16, 18 to 20, inclusive, 23 to 28, inclusive, 32, 33, 35, 38, 69, 70, 135 and 189 are related and may be discussed together. I remind the Minister of State and members that it is almost 5.30 p.m. This is a long session and we are only on amendment No. 5 after one and a half hours. I ask everybody, on all sides of the table, to be as brief and concise as possible in their contributions.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 22, line 22, to delete "Public Expenditure and Reform" and substitute "Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform".
These are technical amendments relating to the changed title of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.
I thank the Minister of State. That was a model of brevity.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 23, line 20, after "1956” to insert ", other than section 36".
I am happy to withdraw amendments Nos. 6 and 7, with the option to resubmit on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 23, to delete lines 23 to 29.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10
Amendments Nos. 8 to 15, inclusive, and 190 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 24, line 6, to delete "and in Schedule 2".
I am proposing that the provisions in Schedule 2 to the Bill be moved to section 12 and that Schedule 2 be deleted. The provisions currently in Schedule 2 are standard. They provide for a regulatory body, to be known as údarás rialála cearrbhachais na hÉireann or the gambling regulatory authority of Ireland, to be a body corporate and for appropriate use of an official seal. The amendment to section 10 is necessary to reflect that Schedule 2 will no longer exist. The overall purpose of the amendment is to streamline the Bill.
Amendment No. 9 amends section 12 to incorporate the provisions currently set out in Schedule 2.
In their amendment No. 10, Deputies Daly, Gould and Pringle have proposed the insertion of two provisions in section 13. I will address each of those provisions separately and in turn. On the first provision, I note that the matter of lived experience was raised directly by Deputy Gould and referred to by other speakers on Second Stage. I replied to that point, indicating that I agreed with Deputy Gould that the authority would have to reflect and have the input of lived experience and could not consist only of corporate representatives. However, I do not agree that the provision proposed is necessary. As Deputies will appreciate, membership of the authority is expected to be demanding. Section 15 provides that the Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service, PAS, the criteria and procedures that will apply to the selection process for members of the authority. Such criteria are to include having regard to the desirability that the members would, among them, possess knowledge of, experience, qualifications, training or expertise in a range of specified matters. One of the specified matters is the pathology and treatment of addiction, with particular reference to gambling addiction. This could include lived experience. When we work with the PAS to draft the information booklet that will be used to invite applications for membership of the authority, we will seek to ensure the lived experience aspect is reflected. It is my intention that membership of the authority will incorporate a broad range of experience that reflects the scale of its remit. Furthermore, the Bill will empower the authority to establish committees to advise on matters relating to its functions. I envisage that lived experience will be an important element of some or all of those committees, depending on the subject matter under consideration. Therefore, I cannot accept the proposed amendment on this matter.
I want to make a few observations regarding the second of the provisions proposed to be inserted in section 13 by way of amendment No. 10 in the names of Deputies Daly, Gould and Pringle. Section 14(3) provides that, subject to this Act, the authority shall be independent in the performance of its functions. I see no need to restate that. While I have no objection in principle to the overall intentions of the proposed provision, it is my preference to provide in the Bill that such an arrangement would be desirable rather than mandatory. It is too difficult to identify who or what constitutes a "potential licence holder". It is so nebulous a concept that it would potentially capture anyone. The provision is not practicable. While I do not intend to accept amendment No. 10, I will consider the matter further in advance of Report Stage to see how best to address it.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, are technical amendments relating to the regulatory body.
I acknowledge what the Minister of State has said. Our amendment No. 10 proposes that, "In appointing the members of the authority, the Minister shall have regard to the objective of there being no fewer than 1 member with lived personal experience of harmful gambling behaviours." As the Minister of State indicated, we discussed on Second Stage the importance of including members with lived experience. It is important the authority includes some people from industry, but we need a balance. The membership must include people who are experts in addiction, but we also need people who have lived experience of it.
I emphasise the importance of hearing people's voices. I have developed a charter of rights for people in recovery. As part of that, I met with focus groups of individuals in recovery to get their insight and hear their lived experience. I thought I had a really good handle on the issues. I did a lot of work and met dozens of groups to put the policy together. When I presented it to the people in recovery in the focus groups before I published it to see what they thought, they came up with more.
They gave me advice and direction on their lived experience. That is why we think it is vital in this section. What we are also trying to do is to also ensure there is a balance among the people who are on the authority and that every side is heard. That is why we think this section is so important.
I agree with Deputy Gould that it is vitally important. It is perfectly reasonable to specify that at least one member of the authority should have personal experience of harmful gambling behaviour because it is something that is very peculiar and specific to the gambling experience, more so different from other addictions. It would be very important to bring that experience to the board. It is vitally important that it should be there and it should be ingrained in the legislation that it is a requirement. We will take into account what the Minister of State said regarding the authority when it considers picking people but, unfortunately, that is not enough. The Bill should specify that there should be someone on the board who has lived experience of a gambling addiction. On the second part, it is vitally important to make sure the members of the board are not skewed towards people who have worked for the industry. It should be something we set out in legislation rather than just relying on it happening properly during the interview process or whatever to get there. There is no harm in specifying it when it is required.
I concur with Deputies Gould, on amendment No. 10, and Pringle, on amendments Nos. 14 and 15. There was something in the initial heads of the Bill regarding these amendments but there was nothing specific about risk assessments. These two amendments are absent in the Bill. Casinos and other gambling outlets can be risk factors for money laundering. Carrying out and independent risk assessment on these harms would be beneficial.
Regarding section 14, I am satisfied this is already attended to in the Bill. Lived experience is hugely important. It should be remembered that the legislation is coming from a public health perspective and not simply regulating a commercial industry. That is why we have the social fund, for example, in there as well to address some of the damage done by gambling. It is absolutely essential that it is a part of what it does. However, in terms of the public appointments system when the authority is looking to appoint people that is a critical point that it needs to take into account.
The board will have a lot of anti-money laundering powers. We have seen the consequences of a board perhaps being in a very difficult and challenging situation. While we want that lived experience on that board, we also have to ensure that any individual also has the other competencies to address the other issues that the board has to oversee. It is an essential element of it but it would be quite challenging to have that the only criterion for one person on the board might be somebody who has lived experience because of the challenges he or she would face on the board in dealing with everything else. What we have tried to do here, and I am satisfied we have, is ensure that lived experience will be a critical part of what the board and the gambling regulatory authority of Ireland do, but stripping it down to an individual situation might be quite challenging. I will certainly keep it under consideration as the Bill moves through the Dail and Seanad.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying. One of the concerns we have relates to the independence of the authority to ensure that no more than two members have had recent employment with any of the licence holders, or potential licence holders, within the past five years. To balance that, there should be a person with lived experience who is in recovery. I acknowledge the Minister of State's point about trying to find an individual who will have the overall expertise. My understanding of people in recovery is they probably have much more experience because they are people who are focused and they are in every field. Unfortunately, many people have had to go through a recovery journey but they have excelled in many different fields and they have to be considered. It is really important that we have an independent, balanced authority and I will press this amendment.
I thank the Deputy. The Deputy has indicated he will press his amendment so we will get to that in due course.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 24, to delete line 16 and substitute the following:
“(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and an official seal and shall have the power to sue, and may be sued, in its corporate name and shall, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of land or an interest in land, and shall have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of any other property.
(3) The seal of the Authority shall be authenticated by the signatures of—
(a) the chairperson or another member of the Authority authorised by it to act in that behalf, or
(b) the chief executive or a member of staff of the Authority authorised by the Authority.
(4) Judicial notice shall be taken of the seal of the Authority and any document purporting to be an instrument made by, and to be sealed with the seal of, the Authority shall, unless the contrary is proved, be received in evidence and be deemed to be such instrument without further proof.
(5) Any contract or instrument which, if entered into or executed by an individual, would not require to be under seal, may be entered or executed on behalf of the Authority by any person generally or specially authorised by the Authority in that behalf.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 24, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(4) In appointing the members of the Authority, the Minister shall have regard to the objective of there being no fewer than 1 member with lived personal experience of harmful gambling behaviours.
(5) In appointing the members of the Authority, the Minister shall have regard to the importance of an independent Authority and attempt to ensure that no more than 2 members have recent (within the past 5 years) paid employment with any licence holder or potential licence holder.”.
Amendment put and declared lost
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 25, line 29, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 25, line 31, to delete “Minister.” and substitute “Minister, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 25, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(r) to cooperate, in relation to the regulation of gambling activities, with the Charities Regulatory Authority, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, Coimisiún na Meán and the Revenue Commissioners.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 25, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(r) to conduct an independent risk-assessment of the potential harms or risk posed by the activities proposed to be conducted by licencees.”.
We will withdraw amendment No. 14 and reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage if required.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 25, after line 38, to insert the following:
“(5) Participating in the revision of the money laundering or terrorist financing risk assessment as it relates to gambling biennially in collaboration with the Anti-Money Laundering Steering Committee, liaising with An Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and any other relevant bodies.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16
I move amendment No. 16 In page 27, line 28, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 28, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“(4) The Office of Government Procurement and the Authority shall produce an annual report, to be laid before the Oireachtas, detailing any and all activities under this section.”.
This is an important amendment because it comes back to reporting under the legislation. The amendment provides for the Office of Government Procurement and the authority itself producing an annual report to be laid before the Oireachtas, detailing any and all activities under this section. It basically provides that an annual report will be generated. It is very important regarding all legislation that there should be reporting on the functions of it and how it is operating because it is something that is missing in a lot of legislation. Some legislation has it but it has never been implemented. We get situations such as one we had one last week where legislation that was supposed to be reported on in 2014 was reported on last week or something like that. That is not acceptable and we need to get into a practice where legislation is reviewed and reported on regularly. The amendment should be accepted for that reason.
The amendment states that the Office of Government Procurement should produce the report as was previously outlined. We had some concerns about the level of outsourcing of agency responsibilities mentioned in the Bill, given the possibility of exploitation. There is frequently a revolving door between regulators and gambling companies, and we can raise a question on Committee Stage about how extensive the hiring of the external reviewers and contractors will be. The amendment aims to address this by giving some transparency.
I agree with Deputies Pringle and Daly on producing annual reports.
It is vitally important that annual reports are presented in front of the Oireachtas in respect of activities in this section. We need to have openness, transparency and accountability and we can only have all that if we have reports being published in a timely manner. Deputy Pringle mentioned reports going back years. How are we to address any issues when the time lag is so great? We feel this is a constructive amendment and would improve the Bill. We ask the Minister of State to take it on board.
I do not propose to accept this amendment at the moment. I have asked my officials in advance of Report Stage, however, to identify if there is a need to specify an obligation that procurement, especially concerning the authority appointing consultants or entering into contracts, should be fully reported by the authority in its annual accounts and reports. The authority is already statutorily obliged to submit its annual accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Its annual accounts and those reported on to the Comptroller and Auditor General must be laid before the Houses. It can be compelled to provide a report on requests made by the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Furthermore, section 33 provides the Minister with the power to request the authority to make a report to him or her at any time in relation to any of its functions. The Office of Government Procurement, of course, is not involved in all public procurement and nor does it have an overall role in respect of related expenditure. I am not supporting the amendment at this point but we will consider it further in advance of Report Stage.
We do not want it left up to the individual Minister, but given the assurances the Minister of State has given us that he will discuss this with his officials, look at it in the meantime and come up with something, we will withdraw it. We reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 29, lines 13 and 14, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform,” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 30, line 4, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 32, line 25, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
The amendments in this grouping are all technical to introduce rewording provisions without having any obvious impact on the import of the legislation itself.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 32, line 30, to delete “may second a public sector employee” and substitute the following:
“may enter into an arrangement with the employer of a public sector employee for the secondment of the employee”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 32, lines 32 and 33, to delete “with the consent of the public sector employee concerned, the employer of that employee and the Minister” and substitute “with the consent of the public sector employee concerned and the Minister”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 33, lines 7 and 8, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 33, lines 17 and 18, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 33, lines 20 and 21, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 33, line 27, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 33, line 32, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 34, line 7, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 to 33 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 37, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“Adherence to Freedom of Information Act 2014
34. The Authority shall be subject to section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014.”.
This is quite a simple amendment to make the authority subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2014 and ensure this is the case.
We intend to bring our own amendments on Report Stage to address some technical issues concerning freedom of information aspects in the Bill. Regarding this amendment, the Bill provides in section 64 for amendment of the Freedom of Information Act 2014. The policy intention here is that the authority or its members, staff and authorised officers and appeals panel, etc., would be subject to the obligations of the 2014 Act concerning their respect functions, but only insofar as this relates to records on general administration.
In practice, this means that records concerning, for example, expenditure and procurement would be subject to the provisions of the 2014 Act. This is quite similar to the obligations concerning freedom of information on the part of An Garda Síochána, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Insolvency Service of Ireland. Records which do not relate to general administration would be exempt. A practical example of this would be that records concerning applications for licensing, charges imposed on licensees, where they are related to turnover, investigations, adjudications processes, etc., would be exempt from freedom of information provisions.
Regarding the Bill's compliance and enforcement provisions, the authority is likely to come into possession of or to create a considerable number of records relating to alleged and suspected non-compliance by gambling licensees. Such records may be relevant in the context of prosecutions. It would not, however, be appropriate to make such records releasable under the freedom of information legislation, as this could potentially hinder, delay or frustrate the bringing of prosecutions, which could result in the erosion of public confidence in the effectiveness of the authority. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the current provisions are sufficiently wide to cover those issues that should be subject to the freedom of information legislation. Those areas that should be protected as a result of compliance with the authority's investigatory role, however, need to be so protected, as information in this regard is often given in confidence or by virtue of compulsion.
Given what the Minister of State has said, I will withdraw this amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 34
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 37, to delete lines 36 to 39, and in page 38, to delete line 1 and substitute the following:
“(a) the Garda Síochána,
(b) Coimisiún na Meán,
(c) the Charities Regulatory Authority,
(d) the Companies Registration Office,
(e) the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission,
(f) the Corporate Enforcement Authority,
(g) the Criminal Assets Bureau, or
(h) the Revenue Commissioners.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 38, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“Amendment of National Archives Act 1986
35. The Schedule to the National Archives Act 1986 is amended by the addition of “Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland, the Appeals Panel, an appeals officer or an adjudication officer (each within the meaning of the Gambling Regulation Act 2023)”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 39, line 6, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 39, line 11, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 39, line 15, to delete “to borrow money or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 39, lines 18 and 19, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 38
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 39, line 31, to delete “section 37(2),” and substitute “section 37(2), or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 39, to delete line 32.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 39 and 40 agreed to.
Section 41 deleted.
SECTION 42
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 41, line 33, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 43
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 42, to delete lines 5 and 6.
The amendments in this group are purely technical.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 42, line 15, to delete “account-holders” and substitute “persons”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 42, line 17, to delete “one or more” and substitute “all”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 42, line 17, to delete “licensees” and substitute “licensees of Business to Consumer gambling licences”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 42, line 21, to delete “an account-holder” and substitute “a person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 42, line 27, to delete “An account-holder may” and substitute “A person may”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 42, to delete lines 34 to 36, and in page 43, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
“(c) be so excluded in relation to one or more than one licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence who provides, by remote means, a relevant gambling activity or activities referred to in paragraph (a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 43, line 4, to delete “an account-holder” and substitute “a person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 43, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
“(f) where the person is an account-holder with a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence referred to in paragraph (e), details of each account held with the licensee concerned;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 43, line 15, to delete “an account-holder” and substitute “a person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No 50:
In page 43, lines 17 and 18, to delete “shall refund any money in the account holder’s gambling account with the licensee to the account-holder” and substitute the following:
“shall, where the person concerned is an account-holder with the licensee, refund any money in that person’s gambling account with the licensee to that person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 43, line 20, to delete “account-holder” and substitute “the person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 43, line 21, to delete “a licensee” and substitute “a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 43, lines 25 and 26, to delete “A licensee who fails, on being notified under subsection (6), to refund an account holder” and substitute the following:
“A licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence who fails, on being notified under subsection (6), to refund money”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 43, line 37, to delete “an account-holder” and substitute “a person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 43, line 40, to delete “An account-holder shall” and substitute “A person shall”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 45
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 44, lines 16 to 24, to delete all words from and including “(1) A” in line 16 down to and including line 24 and substitute the following:
“(1) Where information in relation to a person is entered on the National Gambling Exclusion Register under section 44, a licensee referred to in subsection (5)(e) of that section shall not, on or after the relevant date and during the relevant exclusion period—
(a) provide, to the person, a relevant gambling activity or activities referred to in subsection (5)(d) of that section,
(b) accept, from that person, a relevant payment in respect of such relevant gambling activity or activities, or
(c) communicate with that person in a manner that invites (or has the effect of inviting) him or her to participate in a relevant gambling activity or activities to which the exclusion applies in accordance with subsection (5)(d) of that section.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 44, line 25, to delete “A licensee” and substitute “A licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 44, line 30, to delete “a licensee” and substitute “a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 44, line 36, to delete “A licensee” and substitute “A licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 46
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 45, line 5, to delete “the account-holder” and substitute “the person concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 45, line 8, to delete “the account-holder” and substitute “the person concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 45, line 13, to delete “the account-holder” and substitute “the person concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 47
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 45, line 17, to delete “an account-holder” and substitute “a person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 45, line 23, to delete “An account-holder” and substitute “A person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 45, line 28, to delete “the account-holder” and substitute “the person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 45, line 29, to delete “that account-holder” and substitute “that person”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 45, line 31, to delete “the account-holder” and substitute “the person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 48 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 52
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 48, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(7) The contributions to the Social Impact Fund under subsection (3) shall be calculated having regard to—
(a) the size of licence holders’ operations,
(b) the gambling services and activities being offered by licence holders,
(c) the potential harm/risk associated with the gambling services and activities offered by licence holders,
(d) the percentage of turnover spent by the licence holder on advertising and promotion,
(e) licence holders’ turnover, and
(f) any other matter that the Authority may specify.”.
Head 113 of the heads of the Bill had provided that the authority shall make provision for the same within statutory instruments, but the Bill does not include the same level of detail. We look to reintroduce that level of detail into the Bill to bring it back in line with our commitment that a social impact fund would reflect the fund currently operated in another jurisdiction, namely, New Zealand.
Section 52 provides that the social impact fund shall be funded by annual contributions from licensees, with the exception of licensees of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose, and that this contribution will be determined by authority in accordance with regulations. Under the section the Minister will make such regulations that will provide the percentage of a licensee's turnover which would be payable as a contribution to the fund, the manner and date in which it would be paid for, and that it could be paid for in instalments. The purpose of the Deputies' amendment is to insert a new subsection into section 52 that sets out various criteria which the Minister must consider when determining the level of contributions.
Regrettably, I cannot accept the amendment. The section as drafted provides for a degree of flexibility to allow the authority to determine the needs of operating the social impact fund and the level of contributions required to operate the fund and to finance those activities or projects on an annual or multi-annual basis. Requiring that the authority must adhere to a defined set of criteria may result in the social impact fund either being under or overfunded on an annual basis. This has happened in other jurisdictions where other regulatory authorities are effectively sitting on and are responsible for hundreds of millions in contributions which cannot be used because of a lack of suitable projects to the fund or because the contributions are based on very defined considerations and must therefore be used in very particular circumstances.
While I recognise the intentions behind the amendment are very constructive, and seek to bring certainty to calculating the level of contributions to the fund for smaller licensees, I can assure the Deputies that contributions from small and independent bookmakers will not be the same as those for big players. The Government is seeking to regulate the sector and to ensure the contributions are calculated based on a scale. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.
I think the amendment is very reasonable, as I would, and the Minister of State would not.
It is all in the eye of the beholder.
Yes. I was struck by what the Minister of State was saying about it impacting on the amount of money that would go into or could be disbursed from the fund. I do not think the amendment says that. It says that there should be a differential to the fund depending on size of companies. That is perfectly reasonable and it should be in the legislation. I do not see why there is a problem with it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 52 agreed to.
SECTION 53
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 48, line 21, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
Section 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 48, line 34, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 56 and 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 50, line 25, to delete “a member of staff of a relevant office is” and substitute “a member of staff of the Authority is”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 59 to 66, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 55, between lines 34 and 35, 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.”.
This is a very important amendment for the Labour Party. It relates to advertising, to which the Minister of State referred in his previous contribution. The Bill legislates for a gap from 9 p.m. to mid-morning. What we want is a complete ban. Notwithstanding what I said earlier about those we want to exempt from the Bill and who we feel should be protected in the advertising elements of it, as the Minister of State noted earlier, the nature of this is now completely different. There used to be a social control around gambling. It used to be based around bookies and so on, but now, with the advent of the smartphone, a 13- or 14-year-old can engage in that. There are people older than that with their own accounts. To suggest that after 9 p.m. there can effectively be a free-for-all in advertising on media or open season at a time when a vulnerable young person could be settling down to watch terrestrial television or listening to radio does not wash with me.
Someone who watches sport is bombarded with gambling advertising all the time. It has already been mentioned how some alcohol companies have got around advertising constraints by having placements for their non-alcoholic beverages in the middle of pitches and so on.
What we have here is an amendment to try to completely beat the advertisements, as we say ourselves, to end this practice of gambling advertising. Given that we have major curtailments on cigarette advertising because it is viewed to be a social ill, I do not understand why we are going to be a little more judicious in how we approach gambling advertising. If it is bad enough to be on television and radio up until 9 p.m., surely we should just be clean and clear that it should continue for the entire 24 hours. If this is something that someone is trying to hide from the significant other person in his or her life, it is probably something he or she is going to engage in late at night or maybe in the early mornings, which is the period when this Bill allows for the influence of advertising to really crank up. On that basis, we want the Minister to consider in good faith what we are suggesting and have a complete outlawing of gambling advertising and not have, if you like, the watershed, as the Minister of State has in his Bill.
I thank the Deputy. Does any other member wish to come in on that before I go back to the Minister? No.
After 9 o'clock, it certainly will not be a free-for-all. I was quite taken by the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Justice that there should be a watershed. The purpose of the watershed is to protect children, in particular. Under section 141, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland can make further recommendations around times, places, events, frequencies etc. The regulatory authority can, therefore, come back at a later date if it feels the watershed is not working and make additional recommendations that the Minister can then adopt if he or she so wishes. However, even what advertising can take place outside of the watershed does have to meet strict criteria in terms of the types of advertisements they can use, and those restrictions can be tightened even further by the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland through its recommendations.
We are satisfied that we have built in sufficient measures so that if the watershed is not working, it can be further addressed. However, even those advertisements after 9 o'clock will have quite particular restrictions on them in terms of the types of advertisements and at whom they are targeted. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, certainly at the moment.
I would also be careful with regard to the offences in that they are actually lower offences than are currently proposed within the legislation.
I have a five-year-old daughter. Against my wishes, she turned five and she will probably turn six, which I am also against. At some point, she will probably be a teenager, which I am absolutely against. Even at age five, however, it is impossible for me to predict whether she will be in bed before 9 o'clock. Now, she is five. If someone has a child who is older than that, it is impossible to suggest that this is protecting children by having a 9 o'clock cut-off. That is probably a very old-fashioned view of the way children operate. I can absolutely predict that the Minister of State will have to come back to this point and say it did not work. I do not know what sort of influence is placed on the drafters of the Bill to suggest we need to have this gap so that the gambling companies can do business.
It was a unanimous recommendation of this committee.
It is not my recommendation. I have tabled an amendment to say it is not my recommendation. I feel strongly that we should just make a clean break with this practice. They still have other avenues to promote what they do, often in very unsavoury ways in my opinion. However, it would be cleaner to just do it now and outlaw it in its entirety. Again, I am happy to withdraw and resubmit the amendment if the Minister of State wishes to reflect on it further, but that would be my position and that of my party.
I thank the Deputy. I know he was not a member of the committee at the time this report was done.
I was not. I thank the Chair.
His colleague, Deputy Howlin, was, though, and the recommendation was unanimous
In any event, time has moved and positions move, and that is what we are all about.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 67 to 80, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 81
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 64, line 28, after “Schedule 3,” to insert “or in respect of licences issued under section 113, an amount set by the Authority,”.
We will withdraw as the Government has a consequential amendment later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 81 agreed to.
SECTION 82
Amendments Nos. 74, 112, 120 and 127 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 65, line 16, to delete “by regulations”.
These are technical amendments that standardise references to regulations.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 82, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 83 to 85, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 86
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 67, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(4) The Authority shall, for the purposes of issuing lottery licences under this section relating to bingo, prescribe separately the products and activities that may, subject to subsection (2), be provided by a licensee pursuant to the lottery licences issued under subsection (3), including maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings.”.
We reserve the right to reintroduce this amendment on Report Stage.
Very good. That is noted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 86 agreed to.
Section 87 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 69, to delete lines 2 to 11 and insert the following:
“88. Subject to section 119, the Authority may issue a licence (in this Act referred to as a “Business to Business gambling licence”) in accordance with Chapter 8 authorising the licensee of the licence to—
(a) sell or supply, directly or indirectly, a gambling product or a gambling related service, or both, specified in that licence (in this Act referred to as a “relevant gambling product or relevant gambling related service”) to—
(i) a licensee in the State,
(ii) a person outside the State, or
(iii) the licence-holder of the licence (each within the meaning of the Act of 2013),
and
(b) advertise for sale or supply to the licensees, persons and licence-holder referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a), a relevant gambling product or relevant gambling related service specified in the licence concerned.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 88 deleted.
SECTION 89
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 69, to delete lines 30 and 31 and substitute the following:
“(f) details of any conviction of a licensee and, where applicable, of a relevant officer or beneficial owner of the licensee for an offence under this Act,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 70, lines 26 and 27, to delete “other than information retained in that register under subsection (5)” and substitute the following:
“other than information referred to in subsection (3)(f) and information retained in that register under subsection (5)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 70, lines 29 and 30, to delete “other than information retained in that register under subsection (5)” and substitute the following:
“other than information referred to in subsection (3)(f) and information retained in that register under subsection (5)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 89, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 90 and 91 agreed to.
SECTION 92
Amendments Nos. 80, 86 to 88, inclusive, 95 to 97, inclusive, 100, 114, 116, 117, 124, 139 to 144, inclusive, 150, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168 to 170, inclusive, 172, 174 and 183 to 186, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 72, line 32, to delete “section 1095” and substitute “section 1094”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 92, as amended, agreed to.
Section 93 agreed to.
SECTION 94
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 74, line 42, to delete “moneylender’s licence” and substitute “high cost credit provider’s licence”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 75, line 1, to delete “was refused a moneylender’s licence or held a moneylender’s licence” and substitute “was refused a high cost credit provider’s licence or held a high cost credit provider’s licence”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 75, line 2, to delete “suspended or revoked” and substitute “suspended or revoked or the terms or conditions of which were varied”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 75, line 3, to delete “suspension or revocation,” and substitute “suspension, revocation or variation”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 94, as amended, agreed to.
Section 95 agreed to.
SECTION 96
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 77, to delete lines 4 to 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 96, as amended, agreed to.
Section 97 agreed to.
SECTION 98
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 78, line 19, to delete “subsection (2) or (3) of section 118” and substitute “subsection (2) or (4) of section 118”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 99
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 79, line 15, to delete “subsection (2) or (3) of section 118” and substitute “subsection (2) or (4) of section 118”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 79, line 23, to delete “subsection (2) or (3) of section 118” and substitute “subsection (2) or (4) of section 118”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 99, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 100 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 104
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 82, line 25, to delete “in so far as it relates” and substitute “in so far as the licence relates”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 82, line 26, to delete “authorised in” and substitute “authorised by”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 82, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(5) A gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose shall, unless sooner surrendered, revoked or otherwise ceasing to be in force, and subject to subsections (6) and (7), remain in force for a period of one year from the date the licence is issued or for such longer period (if any) as may be prescribed under subsection (8) for the purposes of this subsection.
(6) A gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose for a once-off gaming, betting or lottery activity or product shall remain in force until the expiration of the earlier of—
(a) a period of one year from the date the licence is issued, or
(b) a period of 2 months after the date the once-off activity concerned is completed.
(7) A gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose which authorises a person to provide pool betting shall remain in force, in so far as the licence relates to pool betting, until the completion of the event, series of events or class of events in respect of which pool betting is authorised by the licence concerned.
(8) The Authority may prescribe a period, being a period that is longer than the period specified in subsection (5), as the period during which a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose shall remain in force in accordance with that subsection and may prescribe different periods during which such licences shall remain in force by reference to the different relevant gambling activities for a charitable or philanthropic purpose provided pursuant to the licences concerned.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 104, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 105 to 112, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 91, 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.”.
I previously brought forward legislation relating to credit cards and gambling. Unfortunately it did not come out of the lottery but it is important and vital that this measure is included in this Bill. The rationale behind it is that people should not be able to gamble money they do not have. People are running up debts. Others spoke earlier about the consequences for people in the throes of gambling addiction. They lose their homes, their families and their jobs. We should be preventing people from gambling with money they do not have. We might not be able to stop those who are at risk of harm through gambling but what we can do is prevent them running up bills when they do not have that money. That is why I think it is vital to regulate the use of credit cards so we ensure no one can lose money they do not have and so big gambling companies do not take advantage of vulnerable people.
This is an area we need to look at because you could run a coach and four through some of the earlier arguments that were being made about some amendments. A lot of charitable institutions engaging in a process of fundraising would take payment for tickets or other things with credit cards. There needs to be a balance as to how we do that. There is a real risk in credit card gambling. My understanding is that a grey area exists at the moment. I could be wrong on this but I believe people cannot run their national lottery account off a credit card. However, they can go into a shop and buy a ticket for entry into the national lottery and pay for it with a credit card. Nothing is perfect. I accept there is a real risk around credit cards but we should make sure that in whatever response to this, if we are doing an action that includes the regulation of the charitable area, we also give some freedom or else there could be a major drop-off in their ability to fundraise.
I will not dwell on this but I support the comments of Deputy Brophy. I agree that there could perhaps be unintended consequences there. That being said, the principle of the amendment is a sound one. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's response.
I cannot accept Deputy Gould's amendment. I appreciate where he is coming from and it is a fine intention. We have already addressed this issue through section 157 of the Bill, which prohibits a licensee from accepting payment via credit card for gambling activity, extending a credit facility to a participant or arranging or facilitating the giving of credit to participate in a gambling activity. The matter covered in the Deputy's amendment are already provided for in section 157(2) of the Bill. Furthermore, the Deputy's amendment might cause some further difficulties. It is restricted to payments for betting only but does not extend to include all other gambling activities, unlike section 157 of the Bill. What the Deputy proposes to do here is already governed by section 157 of the legislation and there is a concern that the proposed amendment might make things somewhat more confusing and allow certain activities to escape through a loophole within it. I certainly agree with the Deputy's intentions and we all want to make sure that is the case. Deputy Brophy raised a point about the charity sector. That is something we will certainly keep under consideration as this moves forward.
Deputy Brophy mentioned the national lottery. Where does the national lottery stand with this?
The national lottery will not be governed by this legislation. It is currently governed by its own bespoke legislation under the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform with its own regulator. Running of the lottery is contracted out. I believe it is run by a Canadian pension fund at the moment. That is where that stands and it is the intention for it to remain like that. It obviously is a gambling activity but it will not be governed by this legislation.
I was just going to say that it seems very clearly to be gambling but I hear what the Minister of State has said. It is not in the scope of this Bill. It was a curiosity that had occurred to me.
I was not going to make this point but we have progressed relatively quickly. I was on this committee from 2016 up until the last election. I have heard all these arguments about the national lottery. I know why we do it and the State knows why we do it and we know all the reasons. In all honesty, while I have absolutely no problem with regulating the living daylights out of bookies and gambling, it is a bit galling to charitable organisations and to organisations trying to raise money. Effectively, the biggest organisation, even if it is being done for charitable reasons though the State gets quite a small proportion of what it actually makes in profit, is able to run a separate operation through separate legislation that ignores almost all the principles of what is enshrined in this legislation and what we are trying to put through. We may not be able to do it now but this is something we need to address as a State. There is a complete hypocrisy, in all honesty, in running a lottery as the State and telling other people that they cannot do it for a charitable purpose.
I endorse the Deputy's comments insofar as I can as Chair. I completely agree. It is a very strong contrast between the national lottery and this. To my mind, it is gambling. People go into a shop and buy a ticket, they take their chance on a draw and the numbers come up or they do not. It is very simple. It is very obviously gambling and it stands in contrast to what has been done here. There are probably legacy reasons or historical reasons for why it is not grouped with this. I do not know if the Minister of State can provide a note to the committee or if that is outside his remit. I am not sure where that stands.
It is a matter for the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.
The committee might write to that Department separately. The issue has been raised by a couple of members so perhaps that is something the committee might do separately of its own volition. The point is noted in any event. How stands the amendment?
I hear what the Minister of State is saying. I just have a few points about people using their credit cards online. What we see with online gambling is people losing money they do not have. There are a number of issues. Someone can go into a betting shop or to a racetrack and use a credit card, which is something we are looking to stop with this, but there is also the whole issue around online gambling with credit cards. When I was developing my legislation to ban the use of credit cards in gambling, we spoke with the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, which was brilliant and did a great piece of work in putting that legislation together. It pointed this out to us as one of the issues that needs to be taken on board. We would have gone ahead with our legislation but because I am an Opposition backbencher I am limited in the type of legislation I can bring forward. We really think this is important. I understand what the Minister of State is saying. He seems to be very genuine and has taken it on board. He has outlined that he feels this is covered in another section. I would ask him and his Department to ensure that but to be honest, because of the people I have dealt with, I feel I have to press this to ensure it is kept on the agenda.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 113
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 91, line 9, to delete “a person” and substitute “an entity registered with the Charities Regulator or an individual acting for same”.
We will withdraw this amendment and reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 91, line 31, to delete “given” and substitute “used”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 113, as amended, agreed to.
Section 114 agreed to.
SECTION 115
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 93, lines 9 and 10, to delete “subsection (3) of section 99,” and substitute “section 99(3)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 115, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 116 and 117 agreed to.
SECTION 118
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 96, line 23, to delete “or” and substitute “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 96, line 29, to delete “or” and substitute “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 96, to delete lines 32 to 39 and substitute the following:
"(2) Standards published under subsection (1) shall take effect—
(a) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in subsection (1) (a)(i) or the gambling related services referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i), on the day following the expiry of the third anniversary of the date of such publication, and
(b) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in subsection (1) (a)(ii) or the gambling related services referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii), on the day following the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of such publication.
(3) The Authority may, from time to time, amend, replace or revoke, in whole or in part, the standards published under subsection (1).
(4) Where the Authority under subsection (3) amends or replaces the standards, the standards as so amended or replaced shall take effect and replace the previous standards—
(a) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in subsection (1) (a)(i) or the gambling related services referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i), on the day following the expiry of the third anniversary of the date of publication of the standards as amended or replaced in accordance with subsection (4), and
(b) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in subsection (1) (a)(ii) or the gambling related services referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii), on the day following the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of publication of the standards as amended or replaced in accordance with subsection (4).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 118, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 119
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 97, to delete lines 11 to 24 and substitute the following:
"119. (1) Where the Authority publishes standards under section 118(1) in relation to a gambling product or gambling related service, an application for a Business to Business gambling licence under section 120, for renewal of the licence under section 122 or to vary the licence under section 123, may not include an application in relation to the product or service concerned at any time after—
(a) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in section 118(1) (a)(i) or the gambling related services referred to in section 118(1)(b)(i), the day following the third anniversary of the date of such publication in relation to the product or service concerned, or
(b) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in section 118(1) (a)(ii) or the gambling related services referred to in section 118(1)(b)(ii), the day following the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of such publication in relation to the product or service concerned,
unless a certificate has issued in accordance with this section that the product or service concerned meets those standards.
(2) On each occasion where the Authority amends or replaces standards under section 118(3), an application under section 120, 122 or 123 may not include an application in relation to a product or service the subject of those standards as amended or replaced at any time after—
(a) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in section 118(1) (a)(i) or the gambling related services referred to in section 118(1)(b)(i), the day following the third anniversary of the date of publication of those standards as amended or replaced in accordance with section 118(4), or
(b) where the standards relate to the gambling products referred to in section 118(1) (a)(ii) or the gambling related service referred to in section 118(1)(b)(ii), the day following the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of publication of the standards as amended or replaced in accordance with section 118(4),
unless a certificate has issued in accordance with this section that the product or service concerned meets those standards as amended or replaced.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 97, line 33, to delete “subsection (3) and (4)” and substitute “subsection (3) or (4)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 119, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 120 and 121 agreed to.
SECTION 122
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 100, to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:
“(b) the period allowed for bringing an appeal under Part 9 against the decision of the Authority to refuse to renew the licence has expired and no appeal has been made, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 122, as amended, agreed to.
Section 123 agreed to.
SECTION 124
Amendments Nos. 102 to 110, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 101, to delete lines 31 to 34 and substitute the following:
"under that subsection by reference to—
(a) different types of gambling licences,
(b) the duration for which different gambling licences are held, or
(c) a particular category or categories of relevant gambling activities, relevant gambling products or relevant gambling related services.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 124, as amended, agreed to.
Section 125 agreed to.
SECTION 126
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 102, line 14, to delete “a licensee, and” and substitute “a licensee and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 126, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 127
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 103, line 13, to delete “A notice” and substitute “A notification”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 127, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 128
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 103, line 24, to delete “A notice” and substitute “A notification”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 128, as amended, agreed to.
Section 129 agreed to.
SECTION 130
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 104, line 15, to delete “related to” and substitute “in connection with”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 104, line 24, to delete “in relation to” and substitute “in connection with”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 130, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 131 and 132 agreed to.
We have two amendments in the name of Deputy Ó Ríordáin. As the Deputy is not present, the amendments fall.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.
Sections 133 and 134 agreed to.
SECTION 135
I move amendment No. 110:
In page 106, line 28, to delete “given” and substitute “used”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 135, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 136 to 140, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 141
I move amendment No. 111:
In page 110, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“(d) the requirements of licensees under section 113 with respect to fundraising.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 141 agreed to.
Sections 142 and 143 agreed to.
SECTION 144
I move amendment No. 112:
In page 111, line 18, to delete “by regulations”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 144, as amended, agreed to.
Section 145 agreed to.
SECTION 146
Deputy Costello has an amendment. Unless that is the Deputy coming through the door - it is not - the amendment falls.
Amendment No. 113 not moved.
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 112, line 32, to delete “This Chapter applies” and substitute “This Chapter, other than section 150, applies”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 146, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 147
The Minister has a number of technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 115, 121 to 123, inclusive, and 126 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 115:
In page 113, line 7, to insert “Chief” before “Superintendent”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 113, line 24, to delete “a person, who” and substitute “a person who”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 147, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 148 and 149 agreed to.
SECTION 150
I move amendment No. 117:
In page 114, line 28, to delete “A licensee to whom this Chapter applies” and substitute the following:
“A licensee of a Business to Consumer licence or a licensee of a Business to Business licence shall not”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 150, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 151 to 154, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 155
I move amendment No. 118.
In page 116, line 29, to delete “his or her”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 155, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 156 to 158, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 159
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 118, to delete lines 30 to 33 and substitute the following:
“(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person may only participate in one or more relevant gambling activities by remote means provided by a licensee of a remote gambling licence where the person is an account-holder with the licensee.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 159, as amended, agreed to.
Section 160 agreed to.
SECTION 161
I move amendment No. 120:
In page 120, line 9, to delete “make regulations prescribing” and substitute “prescribe”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 161, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 162
I move amendment No. 121:
In page 120, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(c) requiring source of wealth checks on account-holders by a licensee.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 162 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
We are moving on to a new block of amendments. We have made a bit of progress but there is still a bit of a way to go. I propose to suspend the meeting, as we said at the start we would have a short break. When we resume, we will be starting on section 163. Deputy Gould has an amendment there, amendment No. 122.
That was discussed with amendment No. 115. It does not matter. We can revisit it, when we resume.
I only wanted to say that we will withdraw it and we reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage because I am going into the Chamber to speak in relation to my party's Private Members' business on housing.
Okay. To be cleaner, we might take section 163 in its entirety and break after that.
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 120, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“Obligation to perform Affordability Checks
163. The Authority shall make regulations—
(a) determining the instances under which licensees are required to undertake Affordability Checks with regard to the welfare of account-holders and their financial status,
(b) outlining the process for Affordability Checks,
(c) outlining the action a licensee must take in circumstances whereby accountholders do not comply with Affordability Checks.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 163
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 120, line 34, to delete “6 months” and substitute “13 months”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 124:
In page 120, line 35, to delete “Subsection (1)” and substitute “Subsection (1)(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 125:
In page 121, line 2, to delete “concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 163, as amended, agreed to.
At this point, we will take a short break. It is 6.27 p.m. and we will resume at 6.40 p.m. That gives 13 minutes to allow everybody a little bit of breathing space. We will resume then.
We have made good progress but, as we all know, we can very quickly lose time as well if we enter into discussions. That is why we are here. We will take a break, but not dilly-dally.
We had a quorum at the start of the meeting and we will be able to continue.
We are okay for that. I am suspending the meeting until 6.40 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 6.27 p.m. and resumed at 6.48 p.m.
Section 164 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 126:
In page 122, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"Obligation to provide data to the Authority
165. A licencee shall provide the Authority with such randomised anonymous data sets as requested to allow for analysis of any gambling or gaming activities operated under any licence granted under the provisions of this Act.".
No more than in any other part of the law, there should be an impetus behind gathering more data so these things can be managed now. It is important that the authority can examine data in order to have a picture of the level of harm that is being caused and the impact of any interventions to reduce harm.
How stands the amendment?
Given what the Minister of State said earlier, we will reserve the right to reintroduce the amendment at a later Stage but will withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 165 and 166 agreed to.
SECTION 167
I move amendment No. 127:
In page 123, line 20, to delete "by regulations made".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 167, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 168 to 171, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 172
I move amendment No. 128:
In page 125, to delete lines 2 to 4 and substitute the following:
“(3) The Authority may, where it considers it appropriate to do so, accept a complaint that is not in writing and where it does so shall, as soon as practicable—
(a) reduce the complaint to writing, and
(b) seek confirmation from the person who made the complaint, in such form and manner as the Authority considers appropriate, that the written record of that complaint is a true and accurate record.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 129:
In page 125, line 6, to delete "referred to in that subsection" and substitute "concerned".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 130:
In page 125, line 7, to delete “the period under subsection (4) for making a complaint” and substitute “the period referred to in subsection (4)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 131:
In page 125, line 9, to delete "in respect of whom the complaint is made" and substitute "in respect of whom the complaint concerned is made".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 172, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 173 and 174 agreed to.
SECTION 175
I move amendment No. 132:
In page 127, line 2, to delete “as the case may be may,” and substitute “as the case may be, may,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 175, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 176
I move amendment No. 133:
In page 127, line 39, to delete “appointed under subsection (1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 134:
In page 128, line 7, to delete “under subsection (1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 135:
In page 128, line 16, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 176, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 177
I move amendment No. 136:
In page 130, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:
“(6) An authorised officer may, for the purposes of carrying out a directed investigation—”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 130, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the following:
“(a) the period within which, or a date and time on which, the person concerned is to comply with the requirement, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 138:
In page 130, line 23, to delete “concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 177, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 178 to 183, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 184
I move amendment No. 139:
In page 135, line 20, to delete “relevant obligation, and,” and substitute “relevant obligation and,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 140:
In page 135, line 23, to delete “that Part” and substitute “Part 9”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 141:
In page 135, line 28, to delete “that Part” and substitute “Part 9”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 142:
In page 135, line 35, to delete “in subsection (2)(c)” and substitute “in subsection (2)(d)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 184, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 185 to 187, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 188
I move amendment No. 143:
In page 137, line 38, to delete “direct an authorised officer” and substitute “to direct an authorised officer”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 188, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 189 and 190 agreed to.
SECTION 191
I move amendment No. 144:
In page 139, line 7, to delete “that contravention of that relevant” and substitute “the contravention of the relevant”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 191, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 192
I move amendment No. 145:
In page 139, to delete lines 12 to 14 and substitute the following:
“192. In imposing an administrative sanction, an adjudication officer under subsection (12), (14) or (15) of section 194, an appropriate court under paragraph (b)(iii) or (c)(iii) of section 198(7) or the Circuit Court under section 199(7)(c) may, where the adjudication officer or the court, as the case may”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 192, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 193
I move amendment No. 146:
In page 139, to delete lines 28 to 30 and substitute the following:
“(2) Submissions may be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) within the period specified in the notice given under that paragraph or within such further period, not exceeding 15 days, as the adjudication officer may agree in writing with the licensee concerned.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 147:
In page 139, line 32, to delete “him or her” and substitute “the adjudication officer”.
Amendment agreed to
I move amendment No. 148:
In page 140, to delete lines 13 to 16 and substitute the following:
“(a) a copy of the information or documentation or, where by reason of commercial confidentiality such information or documentation cannot be provided in full, a summary of such information or documentation received from the person to whom the request was made, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 149:
In page 140, to delete lines 20 to 23 and substitute the following:
“(6) Submissions may be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (5) within the period specified in the notice given under that paragraph or within such further period, not SECTION 193
exceeding 10 days, as the adjudication officer may agree in writing with the Authority or licensee, as the case may be.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 150:
In page 140, line 27, to delete “and is liable on” and substitute “and is liable, on”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 193, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 194
I move amendment No. 151:
In page 141, line 12, to delete “relevant obligation he or she shall” and substitute “relevant obligation, the adjudication officer shall”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 141, to delete line 22 and substitute “shall, at the same time, by notice in writing—”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 153:
In page 142, line 11, to delete “subsection (7)(c)” and substitute “subsection (7)(c)(i)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 154:
In page 142, line 23, to delete “those matters” and substitute “the matters referred to in subsection (7)(c)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 194, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 195
I move amendment No. 155:
In page 143, line 20, to delete “shall, by notice in writing” and substitute “shall, at the same time, by notice in writing”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 195, as amended, agreed to.
Section 196 agreed to.
SECTION 197
I move amendment No. 156:
In page 146, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
“(m) any specific factors, criteria or methodology as may be prescribed by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 197, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 198
I move amendment No. 157:
In page 146, line 21, to delete “way of”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 158:
In page 146, line 31, to delete “the nature of the administrative” and substitute “the type of administrative”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 159:
In page 146, lines 35 and 36, to delete “the date on which the notice referred to in section 194(5)” and substitute “the date on which the notice in writing under section 194(5)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 160:
In page 146, lines 37 and 38, to delete “the date on which the notice referred to in section 195(2)” and substitute “the date on which the notice in writing under section 195(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 161:
In page 147, line 8, to delete “decision as to contravention, or where applicable,” and substitute “decision as to contravention or, where applicable,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 162:
In page 147, line 10, to delete “only”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 147, to delete line 24 and substitute the following:
“(a) where subsection (2)(a) applies—”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 164:
In page 147, to delete line 27 and substitute the following:
“(b) where subsection (2)(b)(i) applies—”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 165:
In page 147, to delete lines 30 to 34 and substitute the following:
“(iii) set aside the administrative sanction, and replace it with such other administrative sanction as the court considers just and appropriate to impose, including in the case of a financial penalty, the imposition of a different financial penalty, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 166:
In page 147, to delete line 38 and substitute the following:
“(c) where subsection (2)(b)(ii) applies—”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 167:
In page 148, to delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute the following:
“(iii) confirm the decision as to contravention and set aside the administrative sanction and replace it with such other administrative sanction as the court considers it just and appropriate to impose, including, in the case of a financial penalty, the imposition of a different financial penalty,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 168:
In page 148, to delete lines 15 to 20 and substitute the following:
“(8) A decision as to contravention or the imposition of an administrative sanction may not be set aside or remitted by the appropriate court under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a), subparagraphs (ii), (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (b) or subparagraphs (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of paragraph (c) of subsection (7) for error of law or fact unless the appropriate court is satisfied that the officer concerned committed a serious and significant error in making the decision, or that the officer committed a series of SECTION 198
minor errors which, when taken together, amount to a serious and significant error.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 198, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 199
I move amendment No. 169:
In page 150, line 4, to delete “that
section” and substitute “section 198”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 170:
In page 150, line 9, to delete “that
section” and substitute “section 198”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 199, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 200
I move amendment No. 171:
In page 150, lines 19 to 21, to delete all words from and including “(1) An” in line 19 down to and including line 21 and substitute the following:
“(1) An adjudication officer may, at any time before making a decision under section 194(1)or imposing an administrative sanction under section 194(12), refer any question of law to the High Court.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 200, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 201
I move amendment No. 172:
In page 150, lines 29 and 30, to delete all words from and including “(1) In” in line 29 down to and including line 30.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 173:
In page 150, lines 33 and 34, to delete “by the Authority, by a licensee concerned in the matter which is the subject of the referral or of the” and substitute “by the Authority or a licensee concerned or on the”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 174:
In page 150, line 35, to delete “concerned” and substitute “concerned (in this section referred to as the “directed person”)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 175:
In page 151, to delete lines 19 to 25 and substitute the following:
“(8) A directed person who, having been required to produce a record under subsection (3) (b), intentionally destroys or otherwise disposes of, falsifies or conceals such record or causes or permits its destruction, disposal, falsification or concealment is guilty of an offence.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 176:
In page 151, line 26, to delete “(8) or (9)” and substitute “(8)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 177:
In page 151, line 31, to delete “(8) or (9)” and substitute “(8)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 201, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 202
I move amendment No. 178:
In page 153, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following:
“(12) A person who, having been required to produce a record under subsection (2)(a)(ii), intentionally destroys or otherwise disposes of, falsifies or conceals such record or causes or permits its destruction, disposal, falsification or concealment is guilty of an offence.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 202, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 203 to 205, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 206
I move amendment No. 179:
In page 155, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(2) The Authority shall not nominate, under subsection (1), any of the following for appointment:
(a) an authorised officer;
(b) a member of a committee established under section 19(1)(b) who is not a member of, or a member of staff of, the Authority; or
(c) a member of, or a member of staff of, the Authority.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 206, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 207
I move amendment No. 180:
In page 155, line 28, to delete “Subject to sections 57 and 58 and subsections (5) and (6)” and substitute “Subject to sections 57 and 58 and subsections (5) and (6),”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 181:
In page 155, after line 35, to insert the following:
“(5) A person shall cease to hold office as an adjudication officer on his or her appointment as an authorised officer or on becoming a member referred to in section 206(2)(b) or (c).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 182:
In page 156, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
“(5) The appointment of an adjudication officer may be revoked by the Minister, in accordance with procedures specified in regulations made under section 209(f), on one of the grounds specified in subsection (6) following—”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 207, as amended, agreed to.
Section 208 agreed to.
SECTION 209
I move amendment No. 183:
In page 156, line 30, to delete “the following”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 184:
In page 157, line 2, to delete “specify”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 209, as amended, agreed to.
Section 210 agreed to.
Section 211 deleted.
SECTION 212
I move amendment No. 185:
In page 158, line 28, to delete “State;” and substitute “State, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 186:
In page 159, line 10, to delete “parties;” and substitute “parties, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 212, as amended, agreed to.
Section 213 agreed to.
SECTION 214
I move amendment No. 187:
In page 160, to delete lines 16 to 19 and substitute the following:
“(b) where a notice of non-compliance states, in accordance with subsection (2)(a) of section 184, that the Authority is satisfied that the licensee has contravened or is contravening a relevant obligation and specifies one or more than one condition under subsection (2)(b)(ii) of that section, against that finding as to contravention or against the imposition of any subsequent condition or conditions, or both.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 188:
In page 161, line 1, to delete “the decision” and substitute “the finding as to contravention”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 214, as amended, agreed to.
Section 215 agreed to.
SECTION 216
I move amendment No. 189:
In page 162, lines 5 and 6, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 216, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 217 and 218 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 deleted.
SCHEDULE 3
I move amendment No. 190:
In page 168, to delete lines 8 to 18 and substitute the following:
“
|
Relevant game
|
€10
|
€3,000
|
|
Relevant lottery (other than once-off lottery)
|
€10
|
€5,000 per week
|
|
Relevant lottery: once-off lottery
|
€10
|
€360,000
|
|
Gambling licence for charitable or philanthropic
purpose
|
lottery: no maximum
game: no maximum
betting: no maximum
|
lottery: €30,000 per week
game: €3,000 per game
|
|
Gambling licence for charitable or philanthropic purpose: once-off activity
|
lottery: no maximum
game: no maximum
betting: no maximum
|
lottery: €360,000
game: €360,000
betting: €360,000
|
”.
I thank the Minister and his officials on behalf of the committee for attending. I thank members for their contributions. This is a significant item of legislation, containing 217 sections, in respect of which there were 214 amendments. I appreciate the co-operation of members in ensuring we processed the legislation swiftly. I thank the recording and secretariat staff who stayed later than usual in order to allow us to conclude our deliberations on the Bill. We have done a good day's work. It was important to dispose of Committee Stage before the summer recess. The version of the Bill that will go back to the Dáil largely reflects many of the recommendations made by the joint committee at pre-legislative stage.
We will now adjourn sine die. The joint committee will be meeting remotely at 10 a.m. tomorrow to deal with some private business.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
