Gambling Regulation Bill 2022: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 80
Debate resumed on amendment No. 121:
In page 64, to delete lines 24 to 37, and in page 65, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following:“
“maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings” means such amount or amounts set by the Authority, with the consent of the Minister, in regulations made under subsection (2) of section 81;”.
- Senator Barry Ward.
Before I call on the Minister of State, I sincerely welcome to the Public Gallery two wonderful public servants who are doing, and have done, extraordinary work. I welcome first of all Julie Duggan, who has been an employee of the Houses of the Oireachtas working with former Deputy, Senator and MEP, Deirdre Clune, and the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. Ms Duggan has been a very good friend of mine in that period.
I also welcome the newly re-elected Councillor Jack White, who represents the Carrigaline area. He also works with the former Minister, Deputy Coveney. The councillor is an up-and-coming public representative from Cork and he is very welcome to Leinster House. He is joined by Councillor Avril Cronin, who works with me and minds me.
Who has also been re-elected.
Yes, indeed. Thank you, Senator Ward. The visitors are very welcome. Enjoy your visit to Leinster House.
We will resume our debate on the Bill. At the end of the previous debate Senator Ruane was in possession.
I was discussing amendment No. 338 in that grouping, as it relates to the Schedule. It would lower the maximum relevant payments for games with a duration of less than 20 seconds. This is a more targeted approach than is offered in the Bill and seeks to distinguish high-speed gambling games and the particular risks they pose. It would also set a lower maximum relevant payment for those aged between 18 and 24. Younger people, particularly those aged between 18 and 24, are at a higher risk of developing gambling problems. Younger persons' decision-making ability has not yet matured, their brains are still developing and they are far more likely to take risks and act impulsively. The UK Government has recognised that this age group has the highest average problem gambling score of any group. It is irresponsible to ignore this in the regulation in the context of high-speed electronic gaming machines.
Amendment No. 127 seeks a periodic review of the maximum relevant payments for these games every three years having regard to any expert research available. Again, while responding to evidence the UK Government has introduced stake limits on slot games. Given the known addictive nature of these games, it seems highly appropriate that the authority would keep an eye on the threshold of these maximum payments, given the clear link between the types of games associated and excessive and compulsive gambling activity.
I thank the Senator. If there are no other Senators who wish to speak, I will ask the Minister of State to respond.
Regrettably, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 338 and 339. As I previously mentioned, the amounts set in Schedule 2 of the Bill are based on the limits introduced in 2019 to the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. They are a direct continuation of the measures, albeit modernised, already in operation. Maintaining and complying with these limits as an initial baseline should cause no problem for those currently providing gambling activities in the State. Furthermore, these amounts will not be set in stone. As Senators will be aware, the authority will have the power to vary these amounts with the consent of the Minister. I expect it will react accordingly and as necessary based on its acquired expertise. The authority first needs an opportunity to accurately assess the scope of the sector in the State.
With respect to the reference to game duration in amendment No. 338, I can assure Senators that the authority will have the power to set standards relating to the operation of the gaming machines, including game duration, under section 117. On that basis I cannot accept the Senator's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 122 not moved.
Government amendment No. 123:
In page 65, line 10, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 124:
In page 65, line 12, to delete “section 99" and substitute “section 99(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 80, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 81
Amendment No. 125 not moved.
I move amendment No. 126:
In page 65, lines 20 to 22, to delete all words from and including “specified” in line 20 down to and including “both,” in line 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 127:
In page 65, after line 35, to insert the following:
“(5) The Authority shall conduct a periodic review of maximum relevant payments specified in column
(2) of Schedule
2 every 3 years, having regard to any expert research available to the Authority in relation to factors that may increase or decrease excessive and compulsive gambling and the means to address such gambling.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 81 agreed to.
Section 82 agreed to.
SECTION 83
Amendments Nos. 128 to 142, inclusive, and 146 to 149, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 128:
In page 66, line 11, to delete “The Authority may” and substitute the following:
“(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Authority may”.
Amendments Nos. 128 to 135, inclusive, restructure and clarify some of the language and terminology used in section 83. In particular, amendment No. 135 reframes and moves the provisions of section 131 into section 83 on betting licences and for clarity and for visibility to continue to allow the authority to prescribe what activities and events may not be the subject of betting. A practical example of this would be prohibiting bets on an incident at a sporting event that could lead to the commission of a criminal offence that is deliberately causing harm to an animal during a sporting event.
Amendments Nos. 136 to 142, inclusive, are technical amendments connected to the insertion of the new section 111 in the Bill. These amendments will allow licensees to add additional premises to their licence rather than a separate licence for each individual premises.
Amendments Nos. 136 to 142, inclusive, are technical amendments connected to the new section 111 in the Bill. These amendments will allow licensees to add additional premises. Amendment No. 146 prohibits commercial gambling operators and suppliers from seeking to use lotteries that can be promoted without a licence to circumvent the advertising restrictions in the Bill. Amendment No. 147 is a drafting amendment recommended by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to correct the wording in section 90(3)(a).
I thank the Senators for their amendments Nos. 148 and 149 but I cannot accept them. The Senators’ amendments would allow any broadcaster to offer and advertise any gambling activities and lotteries as long as they are licensed under the Broadcasting Act 2009. These amendments would effectively allow any licensed broadcaster to bypass any oversight and regulation by the authority by virtue of holding a licence under the 2009 Act. Furthermore, they would give any such broadcaster carte blanche and allow it to ignore the provisions of this Bill in operating and promoting its own activities while those who are licensees under this Bill are required to pay their fees and charges so as to operate in a properly regulated environment and to contribute to the social impact fund. The amendments would also allow commercial broadcasters to operate without restraint while holding charities and philanthropic bodies to a higher level of regulation and restriction. These amendments are disproportionate and seeks to benefit only a select few. To give such an exemption would fundamentally undermine the core purpose and protections within the Bill and would most likely not withstand scrutiny if challenged. I therefore cannot accept these amendments. It would not be right or fair to do so.
I will speak to amendment No. 149 and, in so doing, remark on how great minds think alike. I am very touched by Senator Dooley's amendment No. 148, which bears a striking resemblance to my own. I suspect the same people were in contact with us about it. I have heard what the Minister of State has to say and I entirely accept it. Regarding the impetus behind this amendment, the thrust of this whole Bill is to deal with problem gambling and gambling that is unregulated and does not provide any benefit to the wider community. It seeks to control gambling in a way that allows it to take place for those who can enjoy it responsibly and to allow benefits to the community and the operation of commercial outfits where they do not cause harm. The reason I acceded to put this amendment down is that there are competitions, essentially gambling, in broadcast media that demonstrably do no harm. I therefore feel they come under a different category from the majority of the provisions of the Bill.
The Minister of State has quite correctly said that it is incongruous because it would allow absolutely unfettered gambling. He said it would be unregulated but I am not suggesting it would be as the regulator would still have sway over it. It would be unrestricted, however. He said that would fly in the face of the fact that there are restrictions on charities and philanthropic organisations. That is a valid criticism of the amendment. I would say two things to that, however.
The first is that, in circumstances where it is demonstrable that harm does not arise from these games, there is a basis for allowing them to exist. The legislation as currently drafted will essentially wipe them out. That might not seem to be a cause for concern given that they are money makers for the stations involved but it is important to bear in mind that these restrictions apply equally to large broadcast media and small local radio stations. We know there are difficulties in the operating environment for local radio and local media at the moment. We should be doing what we can to support them. If they can run a gambling product on air that demonstrably does not cause any harm but which supports their bottom line, allowing them to continue to operate their services at a local level, that should be facilitated. It is potentially an important boost to the revenue and income of such stations. I do not see the problem with it.
The second point the Minister of State makes is that it would not be fettered in any way. That is a fair criticism. If we were to include a fetter, a restriction or a requirement to get the leave of the Minister to run such competitions or to have the details of the competition approved by the regulator, would the Minister of State then accept that the principle behind the thing is sound? It includes a specific distinction. It only applies to broadcast media and these games would still be regulated by the gambling regulator. It should also be remembered that broadcast media are already highly regulated. It is not the case that we are trying to create a mini wild west within the scheme. There is room for this. The Minister of State makes the valid criticism that activity is not restricted given the way the amendment has been drafted but will he accept that the principle is sound and that we therefore might be able to put in place restrictions or further elements within the proposed section to make it workable, even as part of the regulated scheme created by the Bill?
I respectfully disagree. The thrust of the legislation is to regulate all gambling within the State with a particular emphasis on ensuring that there are public health protection measures to protect vulnerable gamblers. All gambling is to be regulated through the Bill and that includes games run by charities and sporting organisations, although the advertising piece and a number of other amendments have been included to acknowledge the distinction between charities, sporting organisations and other philanthropic organisations and other types of gambling operators. On the way the amendments are drafted, because all regulation is tied to the licence, exempting broadcasters from having to hold a licence to provide gambling activities would mean they would not be regulated. If anybody wants to submit further amendments, I will consider them but I am not minded to provide any kind of exemption for particular types of commercial activities at this time.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 129:
In page 66, line 15, to delete “paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)” and substitute “paragraphs (a) and (c)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 130:
In page 66, line 17, to delete “to place the bet” and substitute “to engage in betting”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 131:
In page 66, line 23, to delete “paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)” and substitute “paragraphs (a) and (c)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 132:
In page 66, line 28, to delete “paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)” and substitute “paragraphs (a) and (c)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 133:
In page 66, line 30, to delete “to place a bet” and substitute “to engage in betting”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 134:
In page 66, lines 37 and 38, to delete “the activities referred to in paragraphs (b) and (d)” and substitute “the activity referred to in paragraph (b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 135:
In page 66, after line 38, to insert the following:
“(2) A betting licence referred to in subsection (1) shall not authorise a licensee of the licence to provide a betting activity in respect of such matters (if any) as may be prohibited in regulations made under subsection (3).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Authority may, having regard to the public interest and public safety, and having consulted with the Minister, prescribe matters in respect of which a licensee of a betting licence may not provide a betting activity and, without prejudice to the foregoing, such matters may include criminal activities.
(4) The Authority shall, where it proposes to prescribe a matter under subsection (3) in respect of which a Minister of the Government, other than the Minister, has responsibility, consult with the Minister of the Government concerned before making regulations under that subsection.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 83, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 84
Government amendment No. 136:
In page 67, line 10, to delete “a premises” and substitute “one or more premises”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 137:
In page 67, line 11, to delete “the premises” and substitute “the premises concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 138:
In page 67, line 16, to delete “a premises” and substitute “one or more premises”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 139:
In page 67, line 16, to delete “the premises” and substitute “the premises concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 84, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 85
Government amendment No. 140:
In page 67, line 29, to delete “a premises” and substitute “one or more premises”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 141:
In page 67, line 35, to delete “a premises” and substitute “one or more premises”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 85, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 86
Government amendment No. 142:
In page 68, to delete lines 15 to 22 and substitute the following:
“(3) A gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose may authorise the licensee of the licence to provide a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose—
(a) from one or more premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity and, where specified in the licence concerned, off the premises through the licensee or another person where that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee,
(b) by remote means, or
(c) in the manner specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 86, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 87
Government amendment No. 143:
In page 69, to delete lines 20 and 21 and substitute the following:
“(iii) an operator of the National Lottery,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 144:
In page 69, line 23, to delete “licence-holder” and substitute “an operator”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 87, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 88
Government amendment No. 145:
In page 71, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(8) The Authority may publish, in such form as it considers appropriate, the information referred to in paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (l) or (m) of subsection (3) in addition to publishing that information by means of the register under subsection (7)(b).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 88, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 146:
In page 72, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“Application (
Chapter 3
)
89. This Chapter applies to a person other than a person that is a licensee of a Business to Consumer licence or a Business to Business licence.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 89 agreed to.
SECTION 90
Government amendment No. 147:
In page 72, to delete line 36, and in page 73, to delete line 1 and substitute the following:
“(3) In this section, “selling” means—”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 90, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 148:
In page 73, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“91. (1) Notwithstanding section 65, a person may provide a game or lottery without a gambling licence where—
(a) the game or lottery is a broadcast competition in accordance with subsection (3),
(b) there is no additional payment required only of the winner to obtain the winnings,
(c) the winnings are paid out within a period of 6 months from the first date on which persons are invited to participate in the game or lottery concerned.
(2) An exempt broadcast competition is deemed not to be a relevant gambling activity for the purposes of this Act.
(3) In this section—
"broadcast competition" means a game or lottery conducted by a licensed broadcaster in connection with its editorial broadcast activities;
"exempt broadcast competition" means a broadcast competition that may be provided without a gambling licence in accordance with subsection (1);
"licensed broadcaster" means a person providing a sound broadcasting service in accordance with section 59 and section 63 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 or in accordance with Part 7 (Chapters 1 and 2) of that Act.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 149:
In page 73, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“Certain exempt broadcast competitions
91. (1) Notwithstanding section 65, a person may provide a game or lottery without a gambling licence where—
(a) the game or lottery is a broadcast competition in accordance with subsection (3),
(b) there is no additional payment required of the winner to obtain the winnings, and
(c) the winnings are paid out within a period of 6 months from the first date on which participation in the game or lottery concerned, in first invited.
(2) An exempt broadcast competition is deemed not to be a relevant gambling activity for the purposes of this Act.
(3) In this section—
“broadcast competition” means a game or lottery conducted by a licensed broadcaster in connection with its editorial broadcast activities;
“exempt broadcast competition” means a broadcast competition that may be provided without a gambling licence in accordance with subsection (1);
“licensed broadcaster” means a person providing a sound broadcasting service in accordance with section 59 and section 63 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 or in accordance with Part 7 (Chapters 1 and 2) of that Act.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 91
Question proposed: "That section 91 stand part of the Bill."
I listened to what the Minister of State said regarding Senator Ward's amendment. Since there is a similarity, I chose to withdraw my amendment but we can look at it again on Report Stage. I have previously recognised the importance of this Bill and we all recognise the necessity to address the issue of problem gambling.
The intended purpose of the amendment, and indeed what Senator Ward discussed, was to address what can only be considered an over-reach in this Bill as it relates to the Irish radio sector. The proposed amendment effectively exempts licensed radio broadcasters from the requirement to hold a gambling licence to conduct an activity that would constitute a game or a lottery and where this activity is conducted in connection with their editorial broadcast activities. I believe the amendment is necessary because the Bill in its current form may significantly limit the ability of broadcasters to run listener competitions. Listener competitions are important from two perspectives. They are a source of much-needed revenue to local and regional radio stations that are currently struggling to take on the challenges that the large social media platforms are dealing with. In this context, I might add that we have no capacity to regulate problem gambling on the Internet. An element of the Bill undermines good quality public service journalism while at the same time leaving open access to problem gambling on the Internet that, on another level, is damaging and undermining our democracy as a result of the way in which it captures viewers and listenership.
There is another dimension to this. I am conscious that there are many elderly people who sit at home and for whom the day is very long. Many of them are living alone and are towards the end of their lives. These games are an integral part of their daily existence. I have addressed problem gambling with many people over the years. I have yet to hear of radio bingo or many of these relatively small games with relatively small pots being in any way injurious to the people concerned. Listener competitions are familiar to each of us. Listeners typically enter via premium rate telephone lines and then have the opportunity to be selected to play to win by answering a question on air. There is a kind of participation. It gets many elderly people through the day. This is no different from some people who live in isolation and have a drink or smoke a cigarette every day. They are not alcoholics but it is part of putting down their time. I am all for addressing problem gambling but an element of this is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.
The amendment I put forward is predicated on the existing definitions of "lottery" and "game", which are overboard. In their broad language, they seem to capture the Dublin City Marathon as gambling, for example, as it is an activity engaged in by a person on the payment of money by that person who, in return, obtains an opportunity to win a prize of money. The prize in the marathon is €15,000 so it is caught by the new €10,000 limit. The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong about that; it is just an observation. The issue has been raised by the Gaelic Athletic Association, the Federation of Irish Sport and Charities Institute Ireland among others in the Minister of State's ambit. I will not expand on that further as I am sure they have been in touch with him.
Suffice to say, if an alternative approach to the definition of "lottery" and "game" were adopted, the proposed amendment may become unnecessary. Even the Minister's changing the limit to €10,000 is going to cause great difficulties in road races, charities and the GAA. To succeed, prizes need to be of consequence, such as houses, cars, weddings, etc. As we in political parties know, the prizes have to be big cash sums to make a difference and to get people to participate. I am conscious that in County Clare the GAA will raise significant sums of money by offering a house. Participants pay €100 for a ticket and this is done to support the local club. In return, it puts that money into the central coffers. It encourages people to participate. Money goes in and a house is won at the end of it. I am not sure they will be able to do that at the end of this. That would be a retrograde step.
I recognise the Government put a lot of money into the GAA recently through the sports capital fund but this is an alternative way of supporting our Gaelic games, something which we love. I have never heard of a situation, certainly not in County Clare, where anyone over-extending themselves in an attempt to win the house. We have a housing crisis, which we often talk about, but I do not know of anyone who spent more on tickets than they could afford in the hope of winning their dream home. We may need to balance this a little bit more.
It is counterintuitive for radio broadcasters to be prevented from promoting radio bingo or other games of skill or luck during normal hours by the Bill just because the amount runs up. I cannot imagine that this is what the Minister of State had intended. He, no more than any of us, is well connected to the local community and knows how these games benefit people, particularly those who live in daily isolation. An exemption from the operation of the Bill for licensed radio broadcasters is appropriate. There is no cogent public policy basis for treating listener competitions conducted by licensed broadcasters as a form of gambling. Such competitions are already well regulated. There is no evidence of harm arising from the conduct of such competitions, which fund quality local journalism and entertainment.
With regard to existing regulation, broadcasters are already subject to a wide range of regulation that contribute to the fairness and transparency of competitions run by them. As we all know, such regulation includes regulation by ComReg and Coimisiún na Meán, the imposition of mandatory spend caps, industry self-regulation by the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland and general consumer protection regulation. It is well regulated. In addition to those consumer protections, broadcasters typically self-impose mechanisms to ensure fairness and transparency, for example, by setting voluntary spend caps below the mandatory caps and utilising third-party winner selection software. Nothing in the extensive regulation I have described requires the media sector to contribute to the funding of yet another regulator. This would add to the financial insecurity of broadcasters and contribute to the perception of unevenness in the treatment of radio by this Government.
Regarding the absence of evidence of harm, the Bill's purpose has been described as to tackle uncontrolled gambling and problem gambling and to protect children. Listener competitions are neither uncontrolled nor problematic and children are excluded from them. Industry experience with listener competitions is that they generate almost no consumer complaints. The UK provides a useful case study as good data is available there. Evidence provided by the Phone-paid Services Authority, which regulates premium rate telephony services, PRS, in the UK, shows that although broadcasters are the largest users of PRS, the sector has generated no complaints in the past five years. Similarly, industry experience shows low consumer spend associated with consumer competitions. I am told there is an average spend per entrant of €4.27 per month. That is hardly problem gambling. The capacity of consumers to bar or stop premium rate services on their phones further contributes to the absence of consumer harm.
There is also no evidence of harm to children. Under the terms of such competitions, children are excluded. In addition, industry experience is that there are almost no complaints regarding children entering listener competitions. Listener data suggests that children represent a very small proportion of radio listenership. Most people who provide a phone to a child block premium rate services on their phone to prevent inappropriate spending, in addition to the rights that a person may have to claim a refund where PRS have been misused by a child.
Listener competitions allow consumers to actively engage with and participate in broadcast shows rather than passively consuming their content. They enable two-way communication, fostering a more engaging and personalised experience. Moreover, listener competitions provide a vital source of income to broadcasters that is needed to maintain current services. Unlike gambling providers, broadcasters play an indispensable role in society and their funding must be protected. We all know the reasons for that. The loss of income from listener competitions would put pressure on broadcasters' funding which would likely lead to a loss of jobs in the sector. That would include journalists and content creators and a loss of revenue in jobs associated with the sector, including music and arts and the broader creative industries. It would also bring about a reduction in the quantity and quality of local journalistic and entertainment content and the introduction of user paywalls, reducing accessibility for vulnerable consumer groups, including the elderly and lower income groups.
These financial consequences would be compounded by any additional requirement on the media sector to contribute to the funding of a new regulator.
I wish to raise a further issue that was not addressed by the proposed amendment. It relates to the operation of the watershed provision, which will limit the times at which gambling advertising can be run on radio. Again, the limitation is overboard in that it takes a regime that was developed to address the broadcast television sector and applies it to media more generally. Specifically in this case, it is the watershed implemented to address the influence of television. Different demographic and audience consumption behaviours mean a restrictive regime designed for television is poorly suited to address perceived issues relating to radio. It will be counterintuitive if radio broadcasters are prevented from promoting radio bingo or other games of skill or luck during normal hours.
The watershed arrangements will have a material financial impact on broadcasters. They are also likely to have a material financial impact on charitable and community-based funding activities that most people would not typically associate with problem gambling. Such activities are often promoted by the broadcast media either on a paid or complimentary basis. We anticipate that the GAA, the Federation of Irish Sport and the Charities Institute of Ireland will have addressed this issue with the Minister of State in detail through their conversations with him. While I have withdrawn amendment No. 148 on the basis I did not want to put it to a vote, I ask the Minister of State to give consideration to the points I have made, recognising the limited potential for harm in the way the Bill does. Anything the Minister of State might be able to provide me with from a comfort perspective would be most welcome.
Amendment No. 148 is word for word, including grammar, identical to Senator Ward's amendment that we just discussed but I will respond to what Senator Dooley has said. The thrust of the Bill is not to regulate solely children or problem gamblers. It is to regulate the entire gambling industry in the country. This needs to be made very clear here today. This is why the Bill is very big. It is because it is regulating the entire gambling industry. Amendment No. 148 seeks to exempt anybody with a broadcasting licence from all regulation of the legislation because all regulation flows from a licence. Anybody who holds licence is regulated by this legislation.
With regard to small prize money, the prize money involved is €1 to €200,000. While €200,000 may not be worth what it was 20 years ago I still think it is a hell of a lot of money for anybody. These are commercial gambling games where people pay to enter to win what are, in my view, large prizes of €200,000. The charity sector and the sporting sector are regulated by this legislation. It would be quite incongruous to have a situation where the broadcasting sector is not regulated by gambling legislation, no matter what gambling or lottery games they may be running. There are certain exemptions from certain sections in the charity sector. Amendments are being made on Committee Stage and the charity and sporting sectors are quite happy, and I have not heard anything to the contrary, that the amendments will provide the comfort they need to continue to run the games they have been doing heretofore. They will continue to be regulated as they have been.
I am not prepared to accept a proposal to exempt anybody with a broadcasting licence from gambling legislation. It would be quite an odd situation to have, quite frankly.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 92 agreed to.
SECTION 93
Amendments No. 150 to 169, inclusive, 183 to 199, inclusive, and 233 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 150:
In page 73, line 34, to delete "An application for a gambling licence" and substitute the following:
"(1) An application for a gambling licence".
I will speak to amendments Nos. 150, 153 and 154 initially as they concern matters to do with applications for a licence. The Bill as published prohibits the presence of children on premises with facilities to withdraw cash on licensees' premises. While this is appropriate for the vast majority of premises where gambling is offered from, it is not practical to apply them to all premises.
Many venues that operate gambling activities at certain times, such as stadiums, racetracks and other similar premises, also offer many other services that do not involve gambling, including private hire for family and corporate functions, other forms of entertainment, restaurants, shops and so forth. In this context, it is not practical to impose a blanket prohibition on having children and ATMs on such premises simply because the operator holds a gambling licence under the Bill. Rather than provide for an outright prohibition on children on licensees' premises, amendments Nos. 150 and 153 provide that applicants may to apply to the authority for authorisation to permit children on their premises and an application will be determined having considered the information provided under amendment No. 168.
Let me be clear. I am not proposing that children will be permitted on premises wholesale, nor am I suggesting that there is a relaxation of any protective measures contained in the legislation. Without these amendments, however, children cannot attend any venue that holds a licence under the Bill, including many sporting venues, stadiums or racetracks, even with their family or parents and even on days when no gambling activities are being offered. I am sure that none of us want to prevent families from attending a festival, concert, sporting event or other occasion with their children simply because the operator of the premises is a licensee.
Regarding ATMs, it is not the intention of the Bill to trespass on or obstruct the conduct of other businesses in multiuse premises because of their proximity to the provision of gambling activities on certain days or during specific sporting events. Many of these venues are located in less populated areas away from ATMs, whereas the majority of in-person gambling premises and bookmakers' shops are usually located in towns and cities and are relatively near ATMs. A person may have a personal preference to withdraw cash to gamble or to purchase food or drink at a bar or restaurant. There may be times when debit cards and payment systems do not work. This blanket prohibition on ATMs could result in people not being able to pay for goods and services, and it could unreasonably obstruct the conduct of other legitimate and unrelated business. Therefore, I am proposing a number of amendments that will give the authority discretion to determine whether a licensee may permit ATMs on their premises.
Amendment No. 154 provides that as part of an application for a new gambling licence or the renewal of a licence, an applicant may request the authority for permission to allow or provide ATMs on their premises as part of an application. Where the authority determines that a licensee may have an ATM on their premises, having considered the factors set out in amendment No. 169, the authority will be able to set conditions on licences concerning the number of ATMs permitted on the premises and the permitted locations of the ATMs.
Where any condition in respect of either the presence of children or ATMs is breached, the licensee will be subject to serious sanctions for non-compliance. Where the breach is sufficiently serious, a licensee may be charged with a criminal offence under section 172 or 173 of the Bill, and if found guilty shall be subject to penalties of up to eight years' imprisonment in respect of children or up to five years' imprisonment in respect of ATMs, or an unlimited fine, or both.
I will now discuss amendments Nos. 155 to 159 together as they address more miscellaneous issues related to applying for a licence. Amendment No. 155 is necessary to clarify how lotteries operate in practice. On Report Stage in Dáil Éireann, I was requested to clarify and ensure that charitable and philanthropic licensees would not have any difficulty in selling tickets for lotteries and raffles either at their premises or away from premises, for example in churches, schools, clubhouses, door to door and at matches, and by children who are members of such organisations. I am happy to provide this reassurance. The amendment clarifies that these activities will not be affected by the Bill and children can continue to sell tickets for their clubs, schools and societies.
Amendment No. 156 removes the requirement on applicants for a charitable or philanthropic licence from having to supply detailed information on the IT systems they use to provide gambling activities.
Amendment No. 157 provides that an applicant for a gambling licence must disclose if they are an applicant for a licence or a licensee under the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and, where an application for a licence was refused or where the licence was varied, suspended or revoked, the reasons for that variation, suspension or revocation.
Given the alternative debt resolution procedures that have been introduced, such as personal insolvency arrangements for example, with amendment No. 158 we are widening the information required from licence applicants to include any other arrangements or compositions with creditors.
Amendment No. 159 provides that where a premises is operated by Rásaíocht Con Eireann or Horse Racing Ireland and where other gambling licensees may also operate from those premises, only the overall operators of the premises shall make an application to permit children and-or ATMs on those premises.
With regard to amendments Nos. 151 and 152 from Senators Ruane and Higgins, unfortunately I cannot accept amendment No. 151 as I am satisfied that the mandatory obligations and conditions imposed on licensees by the Bill sufficiently address and include the issues the Senators have raised. I do not agree that licensees should specify the measures they propose to take, nor can I see how any failure to follow those voluntary measures could be enforced by the authority.
I cannot accept amendment No. 152 as it is not practical to expect an applicant to give detailed information they may potentially store or process in the future as part of an application.
Amendment No. 160 is a technical amendment to section 94 to reflect the updated numbering in section 93. Amendment No. 161 updates section 94(2)(f)(i), whereby an applicant for a betting licence must disclose if the applicant, a relevant officer or a beneficial owner of the applicant unreasonably refused to pay out winnings under the 1931 Act when applying for a betting licence from the authority. Amendment No. 162 is necessary to accurately reflect how betting operates in practice in the terminology of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 update section 94(2)(g), whereby a body corporate that is an applicant for a betting licence from the authority must disclose if the applicant, a relevant officer or a beneficial owner of the applicant unreasonably refused to pay out winnings or refund deposits to a person who won while engaged in betting with the applicant under the 1931 Act when applying.
Amendment No. 165 provides for additional information that must be included as part of an application for a new in-person gambling liocence, to renew a licence or to add new premises to an existing licence. Amendment No. 166 provides the authority may request additional information concerning a premises when assessing the premises. Amendment No. 167 is a minor technical amendment to replace the “and” at the end of section 95(c)(v) with the word “or”.
Amendment No. 168 provides that the following information must be included when making an application to allow children on a premises: the reasons why children should be allowed on the premises and details of all non-gambling activities provided at the premises, including other commercial or recreational offerings.
Amendment No. 169 provides that the following information must be included as part of an application to allow ATMs on the premises: the number of ATMs already available on the premises; the number of ATMs sought to be provided on the premises; the proximity of the nearest ATM to the premises; all non-gambling activities that will be provided on the premises; and the location of any ATMs already on the premises.
Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 are technical amendments which refer to the correct renumbered subsections 93(1) and 99(1), respectively. Amendment No. 185 corrects a minor drafting error in the Bill.
Amendment No. 186 is a technical amendment. Amendments Nos. 187, 189 and 190 are necessary to refer to the updated, renumbered section 93(1). Amendment No. 188 removes the obligation on charitable or philanthropic licensees to submit detailed technical information when seeking to renew a licence to provide gambling activities by remote means.
Amendment No. 191 provides that where an applicant seeks to renew an in-person gambling licence, they must provide the documentation and information required under section 95 as part of the application. Amendment No. 192 provides that where an applicant seeks to renew an in-person gambling licence where ATMs were not previously permitted on the premises, they must include information specified in section 95(3). Amendment No. 193 provides that where an applicant seeks to renew a licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose and wishes to allow its members or agents to sell tickets away from the premises listed in the application, a statement to that effect, including why the applicant feels it is necessary, must be provided to accompany the application for renewal. Similarly, in the case of schools, sports clubs and other charitable or philanthropic causes where children may be members, applicants must include a statement that children may be selling tickets or providing a gambling activity and the reasons the children will be doing so. Amendment No. 194 is necessary to refer to the updated, renumbered section 93(1).
Amendment No. 195 provides that where a premises is operated by Rásaíocht Con Éireann or Horse Racing Ireland, where other gambling licensees may also be operating from those premises, only the principal licensee shall apply to the authority to permit children and-or ATMs on those premises when applying to renew an in-person gambling licence. Amendment No. 196 provides that where an applicant for a charitable or philanthropic once-off licence or for renewal of such a licence seeks to provide gambling activities away from its premises or intends to use children to sell tickets, the authority may seek further information concerning the application.
Amendment No. 197 provides that the authority shall reissue an updated version of a varied gambling licence in question within 14 days of granting the application for variation. Amendment No. 198 corrects a drafting error. Amendment No. 199 inserts an "or" at the end of section 106(4)(a).
Regarding amendment No. 233, section 122 provides that a licensee of a business-to-business licence may apply to the authority to vary the products and services they may provide pursuant to their licence. Amendment No. 233 provides that such an application must be in the form and manner specified by the authority and accompanied by an application fee.
The Minister of State has indicated the intention of the amendments but it is still important to speak to them. I will speak to amendments Nos. 151 and 152. This section of the Bill deals with the information which must be provided when making an application for a gambling licence.
Amendment No. 151 inserts a new provision which would stipulate that a prospective licensee would be obliged to submit information regarding measures to be taken to safeguard participants in gambling, including through the reduction of risks and harms posed to those participants. We feel there is an imbalance in the Bill in respect of safeguarding, with the burden being on participants to keep themselves safe from harm. Of course, people bear personal responsibility for the decisions they make but the industry concerned with this legislation has a motive which is regularly in direct conflict with the needs of many of its participants. It can be incredibly difficult for people with a compulsion or addiction to stop engaging in problematic behaviour because they feel compelled to engage in it. We must do more to help people who need a proactive way, as opposed to waiting for a person to take exclusive responsibility to self-identify as a problem gambler or gambling addict, or to self-exclude.
We have all been subject to a barrage of gambling advertising in recent years and while we are not all susceptible to this messaging, many people are and there is a significant uptick in the number of people affected by problem gambling or gambling addiction. According to the ESRI, in 2023 one in 30 people in Ireland had a gambling addiction, ten times higher than the equivalent statistic in 2019, while one in ten people is classified as a problem gambler. This significant uptick is likely due to the increased prevalence of gambling in contemporary life and the ease of access to gambling services through online and remote means. While the regulator will obviously have an important role to play in trying to reduce the number of people affected by excessive and compulsive gambling and gambling addiction through its programming, it cannot achieve this on its own. Gambling companies, which ultimately bear responsibility for the development of excessive and compulsive gambling habits, must also take responsibility. We cannot expect they will do this out of goodwill and we must mandate that they provide safeguarding statements that set out how they intend to keep their participants safe from gambling harm.
As someone who has worked in addiction for a long time, I primarily worked with substance addiction but regularly worked with people with gambling addiction. I have been working in addiction since 2007. There was not always somewhere people could identity to go to for support, so they would sometimes end up in community projects seeking support with gambling. For many years, we have heard people talk about drug dealers when somebody is trying to stay sober or is not using a substance, and there is the demonisation of people around them: "Why did you give them that?" or "Why did you offer them that?" We do not extend that same expectation to a massive industry. Why would we not shame that industry if it is purposely preying on people's addiction? It is able to collect data in a way that picks up gambling behaviour.
If someone in our household was struggling with any addiction, we would not wait for them to self-identity; we would expect services to give interventions. We should apply the same logic to gambling, reducing harm and improving the gambling industry in terms of it taking a more proactive response. As someone who worked in addiction, it was always difficult when someone came in with gambling addiction because it was harder to support someone with that addiction. It was not always only men; there were older women with addictions to scratch cards.
They would spend all their money on payday, or their social welfare over a day or two, on scratch cards, and leave themselves with little or nothing for the week. We would often try to have conversations with shop owners to make sure that is not the case and tell them that the person would be left without food.
As well as personal responsibility, we need to make sure that the gambling industry is being much more proactive. When working in the homeless sector and hostels, in Back Lane Hostel around 2010, I remember two men in particular. One owned a restaurant. He lost it a number of times through gambling. He won it back and lost it again. This was a man who did not have any other social issues going on in his life but kept ending up back in homelessness because of his gambling addiction. When we look at compulsive behaviours such as that, we need to treat them in the same way we would a substance or anything else. We need to accept that the individual will not always be in the position to self-identify in time before it is too late - before they lose absolutely everything.
Addiction is extremely evasive and hard to manage, and gambling is no different. If we look at somebody who is on drugs, people have a reaction to somebody who is very physically and visibly in addition. However, a gambling addiction will never look physical or be visible, so we turn a blind eye somewhat to how much it destroys an individual’s life and the impact it can have on an individual. With a substance, you go to sleep at some stage. There is only so much substance you can take. As someone who provides supports for people with addiction, it is always easier to provide supports for substance use because of the physical nature and the physical impact on the body. You can gamble all night and all day repeatedly, and never fall asleep. You will not fall over drunk and wake up ten hours later. You will be physically able to continue to engage in one of the hardest addictions to overcome because of the nature of it.
Therefore, I do not accept that, in this case, we have to wait for somebody to self-identify. We should put into the legislation that the licensee, especially when they understand gambling behaviour, can identify. We should put those harm reduction measures into the regulation.
Amendment No. 152 also seeks to insert a new provision regarding information to be included in an application for a gambling licence which, if accepted, would require a prospective licensee to provide information regarding the personal data to be gathered from participants and how it is intended to be processed and used. This amendment is particularly relevant for remote service providers who are most likely to collect personal data so they can personalise betting services for their participants. While there are certain obligations on online service providers including gambling companies in the GDPR and the Digital Services Act, it is important that, before receiving a licence to operate in the Irish market, gambling companies provide the regulator with information about their data protection and privacy processes given the often insidious and predatory behaviour of gambling companies in the personalisation and individualisation of their services through extensive data profiling.
I know I keep going back to drugs, but it is hard not to because addiction is addiction. We keep going on about grooming Bills and stuff in this Chamber in respect of drugs in communities. The gambling industry, in many ways, is grooming people, but we do not have the same uproar about it. We are not putting in place regulations that are as strict as I think they should be with regard to making sure they do not have the opportunity to do that. Data is one way they are doing that with how they build profiles on people.
Investigative reporting in The New York Times in 2021 highlighted the disturbing extent of the manipulation of participants’ personal data with the sole aim of keeping them engaged in gambling activity. The reporting demonstrated that betting companies regularly compile what is, in effect, a dossier of information about their participants, either directly or through a third-party data service. The dossiers contained detailed banking records, mortgage details, location co-ordinates and an intimate portrait of a participant’s habits and behaviours that can be processed to provide bespoke, individual recommendations to participants using artificial intelligence and recommender systems. A particularly disturbing revelation in the reporting was that data-profiling software label participants who leave as customers to “win back”. For example, one participant received emails to win more than $40,000 by playing slots after automated software flagged that he was likely open to them. A predictive model even estimated how much this individual would be worth to the company if he started gambling again - about $1,500.
While the GDPR and the Digital Services Act have a critical role to play in regulating the behaviour of online service providers with respect to data protection and data privacy including gambling companies, the new gambling regulator should also have to play a proactive role with regard to the expectations it places on prospective licensees.
I welcome the new councillor from south-west Cork, Councillor John Michael Foley, who is here with Senator Lombard. I hope he has a good visit to Leinster House.
If there are no other Senators who wish to speak on this grouping of amendments, I ask the Minister of State to respond.
I agree with the Senator that gambling addiction is not very different in some ways from other addictions. It is not about winning money; it is about people trying to self-medicate, get a sense of self-worth or whatever the case may be. If a gambling addict wins €10 million today, they will gamble every penny of it away again because it is nothing to do with actual money. It is an addiction that is quite difficult to address because it can very often be hidden. Not to diminish alcohol addiction, for example, but in gambling addiction, you can gamble away your home and everything you have in a few minutes. It is difficult. Often before a loved one knows a person has any issue at all, the sheriff, a member of An Garda Síochána or a letter arrives home from the bank, seeking to repossess a house. It leaves people who have never been in trouble with the law to do very stupid and criminal things, unfortunately, to feed that addiction.
I hear the Senator and I know where she is coming from. The regulator can make codes of practice but also, importantly, the regulator, when implementing the Act, has a duty to keep an eye on relevant games and relevant developments within the gambling industry, and seek further powers from the Minister in situations where the regulator feels they need additional powers to address any kind of issue. They develop codes of practice that will be binding and tied to the licence.
The powers for the regulator come from a public health perspective. With regard to the issues the Senator raised, if the regulator believes any further powers can address those, including any attempts at developing gambling addiction, they can do so through codes of practices or seeking additional powers. There can be no inducements under this regulation. That kind of targeting of individuals has to stop under this legislation. It is not allowed. We know the kinds of attempts by many gambling companies to try to get people gambling again. Gambling companies have moved away from the high-rollers to the broader public to try to make more and more of their profits.
I am satisfied there are sufficient powers in this legislation. If the regulator feels there is not, it can seek those additional powers to be given to it, in most cases by way of statutory instrument. Therefore, I cannot accept the Senator's amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 151:
In page 74, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(e) information regarding the measures to be taken by the proposed licensee to safeguard their participants and to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the risks and potential harms posed to persons by gambling;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Daly, Paul.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Hara, Malachai.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Ruane and Mark Wall; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Seán Kyne.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 23rd September, 2024 for the remainder of this Seanad term and, accordingly, has not voted in this division. Senator Catherine Ardagh has notified the Cathaoirleach that she has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave and, accordingly, has not voted in this division.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 74, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(a) information regarding any personal data to be gathered, stored and processed by the licensee or any third party service provider on behalf of the licensee, and how it is intended to be used;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Daly, Paul.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- McGahon, John.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Hara, Malachai.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Ruane and Mark Wall; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Seán Kyne.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 23rd September, 2024 for the remainder of this Seanad term and, accordingly, has not voted in this division. Senator Catherine Ardagh has notified the Cathaoirleach that she has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave and, accordingly, has not voted in this division.
Amendment declared lost.
Government amendment No. 153:
In page 74, to delete lines 25 to 28 and substitute the following:
“(h) where the application is for a Business to Consumer gambling licence under section 107 and the gambling activity sought to be licensed is proposed to be provided from one or more than one premises in the State—
(i) in the case of a premises that is not a relevant premises, the information and documentation specified in section 95(1), and, in the case of a relevant premises, the name and address of the relevant premises concerned, and
(ii) subject to subsection (2), where it is proposed to permit children on the premises, the information specified in section 95(2);”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 154:
In page 74, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(i) subject to subsection (2), where the application is for a Business to Consumer gambling licence under section 107 and the gambling activity sought to be licensed is proposed to be provided from one or more than one premises in the State and it is proposed to provide an automated teller machine on the premises, the information and documentation specified in section 95(3);”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 155:
In page 74, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(j) where the application is for a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose under section 112 or 113 and, in addition to providing a gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose from one or more premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity—
(i) it is proposed to provide the activity off the premises through the licensee or another person where that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee, a statement to that effect and the reasons why it is considered necessary, and
(ii) where it is proposed that an employee, servant or agent of that licensee may, for the purposes of subparagraph (i), include a child, the reasons for such inclusion;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 156:
In page 74, lines 30 and 31, to delete “or for a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose under section 112 ”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 157:
In page 75, to delete lines 30 to 35 and substitute the following:
“(i) holds a licence to act as a high cost credit provider, an authorisation to act as a credit intermediary or an authorisation to act as a mortgage intermediary (all within the meaning of that Act), or
(ii) was refused a licence or authorisation referred to in subparagraph (i) or held such a licence or authorisation that was suspended, revoked or the terms or conditions of which were varied under that Act and, if so, the grounds for such refusal, suspension, revocation or variation, as the case may be;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 158:
In page 76, line 10, to delete “bankrupt;” and substitute the following:
“bankrupt or, at the time of application, subject to a composition or arrangement with his or her creditors;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 159:
In page 76, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(2) Paragraph (h)(ii) or paragraph (i) of subsection (1) shall, in the case of a relevant premises, only apply where the application for the gambling licence concerned is made by Rásaíocht Con Eireann or Horse Racing Ireland or a company or subsidiary of Horse Racing Ireland and the premises concerned is a relevant premises.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 93, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 94
Government amendment No. 160:
In page 76, line 24, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 161:
In page 77, lines 11 and 12, to delete “refused to pay sums due to persons who won bets made with that holder” and substitute “refused to pay winnings to a person or persons to whom the winnings were due”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 162:
In page 77, lines 13 and 14, to delete “who won bets made with” and substitute “who won at betting engaged in with”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 163:
In page 77, lines 19 and 20, to delete “refused to pay sums due to persons who won bets made with that holder” and substitute “refused to pay winnings to a person or persons to whom the winnings were due”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 164:
In page 77, lines 21 and 22, to delete “who won bets made with” and substitute “who won at betting engaged in with”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 94, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 95
Government amendment No. 165:
In page 77, line 26, to delete “The information and documentation referred to in section 93(h)” and substitute the following:
“(1) The information and documentation referred to in section
93(1)(h)(i), 99(1)(e)(i) and 111(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 166:
In page 77, line 34, to delete “(c) details of—” and substitute the following:
“(c) where requested by the Authority following its consideration of the information provided under paragraph (a), details relating to—”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 167:
In page 78, line 4, to delete “and” and substitute “or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 168:
In page 78, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(2) The information referred to in section 93(1)(h)(ii) and 99(1)(e)(ii) is, in respect of each premises where it is proposed to permit children on the premises—
(a) a statement of the reasons why children should be permitted on the premises, and
(b) details of all activities, other than gambling activities, that will be provided on the premises.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 169:
In page 78, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(3) The information and documentation referred to in section 93(1)(i) and 99(1)(f) is, in respect of each premises where it is proposed to provide an automated teller machine—
(a) the number of automated teller machines (if any) already available on the premises,
(b) the number of automated teller machines sought to be provided on the premises,
(c) the proximity of the premises to the nearest automated teller machine located outside the premises,
(d) details of all activities, other than gambling activities, that will be provided on the premises, and
(e) identification, on the maps and plans provided under subsection (1) of—
(i) any automated teller machines referred to in paragraph (a), and
(ii) the proposed location of any automated teller machines sought to be provided on the premises.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 95, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 96
Amendments Nos. 170 to 176, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 170:
In page 78, line 20, to delete “Where section 95 applies” and substitute “Where information and documentation referred to in section 95(1) is furnished”.
Amendments Nos. 170, 171 and 173 provide that when assessing whether a premises is suitable to provide gambling activities from, the authority shall consider any information provided under section 95(1)(a) as part of an application and must consult with the local authority where the premises are situated, must consult with the relevant fire safety authority, and must inspect the premises before making a determination for an in-person gambling licence.
Amendment 174 provides that in the case of Limerick City and County Council, the authority must consult with the director general of the council and for a reciprocal requirement to engage with the HSA.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendment No. 172 because what is proposed is too broad and would be impractical to operate. I am satisfied with the policy underpinning the section, particularly the requirement to consult with local authorities and consider the location of schools when considering applications. Furthermore, the Government’s amendment will strengthen the consultation provision and provide for co-operation between the authority and local authorities concerning the location of premises and whether gambling may take place in a particular area.
Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 provide that the authority shall make a determination to allow children or ATMs on premises having considered the information submitted to it under section 95 and that any determination may be subject to any conditions, including any additional measures, to protect children or conditions to restrict the number of ATMs or requiring them to be located away from areas where gaming takes place if the authority feels such measures are necessary.
According to the press release relating to Health Research Board's study on gambling prevalence:
There is a marked correlation between problem gambling and substance use (drug use, alcohol use disorder and/or smoking), with 13% of those with an alcohol use disorder classified as an at risk or problem gambler compared with 2% of low-risk drinkers.
The release also states:
A 2024 report looked at the prevalence of gambling and alcohol use using data from the 2019–20 NDAS. The findings indicate that drinkers were more likely to report gambling in the previous year (53.0% (low-risk drinker) – 59.3% (alcohol use disorder)) compared with non-drinkers (34.2%).
Drinkers who reported monthly heavy episodic drinking were more likely than low-risk drinkers to meet the criteria for at-risk (low-risk and moderate-risk) and problem gambling. Those who met the criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD) were most likely to meet the criteria for at-risk gambling (11.2%) or problem gambling (1.5%).
This is why in our amendment we suggest the insertion of the phrase "playgrounds, community and health centres, creches and early-learning centres, colleges and universities, and licensed premises” after the word "schools".
I wish to refer to sections 95 and 96 again and reiterate what I said earlier. As far as I am concerned, this Bill abolishes the right of local authorities to determine what part of their local administrative areas the operation of casinos can take place in. Instead, section 96 comes up with a rather ridiculous proposal that they should be consulted. I have spoken about this issue before, so I am not going to delay the House now. However, what is being done here will take away a valuable power from local authorities to determine where casinos can operate in their areas. That power exists under the 1956 Act. It is being scrapped under this provision. No good reason has ever been advanced why local authorities should not have the power to decide these matters.
This Bill, the debate on which is being guillotined, is one to enable gambling, to increase the amount of gambling that takes place in Ireland and to increase the exploitation of people who are the least able to afford their gambling habits. It is not a step in the right direction. I am strongly opposed to the Bill, to the intent behind it, to the fact that it takes away local authorities' discretion in this matter and to the fact that it will have the effect of increasing injustice in our society by making it easier for rich people to get richer at the expense of poor people.
I certainly understand the import of Senator Ruane's proposed amendment. It would make the situation totally impracticable if all of those separate, albeit important, areas were included in the legislation. A regulator has wider powers other than simply taking into account schools.
In response to Senator McDowell, we have had this extensive discussion on the previous occasion. I fundamentally disagree with the Senator's position that this will enable gambling. It will bring a more coherent approach to gambling in this country and a far more restrictive and controlled regime.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 171:
In page 78, to delete line 23 and substitute the following:
"(a) that information and documentation,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 172:
In page 78, line 28, after "schools" to insert the following:
", playgrounds, community and health centres, creches and early-learning centres, colleges and universities, and licensed premises".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 173:
In page 78, to delete lines 31 to 33 and substitute the following:
"(a) subject to subsection (3), consult with the local authority in the local authority area in which the premises concerned are situated,
(b) consult with the fire authority (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1981) in whose functional area (within the meaning of that Act) such premises are situated, and
(c) inspect the premises concerned.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 174:
In page 78, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(3) The function conferred by subsection (2)(a) shall, in the case of Limerick City and County Council, be performed for or on behalf of that local authority and in its name by the Director General of that Council.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 96, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Government amendment No. 175:
In page 78, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"Assessment of suitability of premises for children
97. (1) Where section 93(1)(h)(ii) applies, the Authority shall, on application to it under section 107, where it has determined in accordance with section 96 that a premises where it is proposed to provide a gambling activity is suitable for use for that activity, determine whether children should be permitted on the premises having regard to the location and nature of the premises and the information submitted under section 95(2).
(2) Where section 99(1)(e)(ii) applies, the Authority shall, on application to it under section 110, determine whether children should be permitted on the premises having regard to the location and nature of the premises and the information submitted under section 95(2).
(3) The Authority may make a determination under subsection (1) or (2) to permit children on premises subject to such conditions as it may specify when making the determination concerned.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 176:
In page 78, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"Assessment of suitability of premises for automated teller machine
98. (1) Where section 93(1)(i) applies, the Authority shall, on application to it under section 107, where it has determined in accordance with section 96 that a premises where it is proposed to provide a gambling activity is suitable for use for that activity, determine whether an automated teller machine or machines should be permitted on the premises having regard to the information and documentation submitted under section 95(3) and, if so, the number and location of such machines.
(2) Where section 99(1)(f) applies, the Authority shall, on application to it under section 110, determine whether an automated teller machine or machines should be permitted on the premises having regard to the information and documentation submitted under section 95(3) and, if so, the number and location of such machines.
(3) The Authority may make a determination under subsection (1) or (2) to permit an automated teller machine or machines on a premises subject to such conditions as it may specify when making the determination concerned.".
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 97
Amendments Nos. 177 to 182, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 177:
In page 78, line 37, to delete "section 93" and substitute "section 93(1)".
Amendment No. 177 is a technical amendment to section 97 to refer to the correct renumbered subsections 93(1) and 99(1), respectively, as is amendment No. 180, which removes redundant language from section 97(1)(b) which is already set out in the obligations concerning the national gambling exclusion register.
Regrettably, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 178, 179, 181 and 182 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins. Regarding amendment No. 178, I am satisfied with section 97 as drafted. The Senators’ amendment would render the purpose of the section, and the ability of the authority to ensure licensees' systems provide gambling activities in a fair and transparent manner, unworkable.
On amendment No. 179, it would be unreasonable to expect an applicant to provide details of any new or emerging technologies they may or may not use as part of an application. Furthermore, I am satisfied that where a licensee proposes to use or uses such a new technology, this is addressed by sections 97 and 126.
Regarding amendment No. 181, I am not satisfied the Senators’ amendment is necessary. In drafting this Bill, I consulted the Data Protection Commission and the commission did not specify a need for such a provision.
I cannot accept amendment No. 182 as it is unclear what the Senator means by "an algorithmic safety report" or by "algorithmic harm". In this context, it is not proper practice to include unclear concepts or provisions in the Statute Book.
Section 97 sets out the specific information and documentation to be provided by remote licensees when applying to the regulator. Remote licensees, by their nature, invoke certain technologies - hardware and software - to provide gambling activities and it is important the regulator is made aware of the full extent and nature of the technology to be used before granting the licence.
While there is a provision included that requires licensees to set out information relating to the location and type of technology hardware to be used, the provisions are less robust with respect to technology software to be used. As we have set out on a number of occasions throughout the Bill, it is software that is remaking the landscape of gambling activity given the share of gambling activity that now takes place online. This amendment would adjust the wording of the existing provision to ensure equal weight would be given to both the hardware and software used by a licensee when making an application to the regulator.
Amendment No. 179 shares a similar intention to amendment No. 178, seeking to expand on the obligations of licensees to provide information to the regulator about the types of technologies to be used in the provision of gambling activity with particular respect to new and emerging technologies. As we have stressed, it is software technology that is remaking the regulatory landscape. Once we feel like we are done regulating and legislating, it is likely that new technology will emerge and necessitate further revisions.
Technology has a habit of outpacing our ability to regulate and legislate and the prevalence of online gambling, particularly within the cohort of participants most susceptible to problem gambling, highlights this to a certain extent. We cannot rely on industry to voluntarily forewarn us of the challenges to come because it often has motives that are in conflict with regulators and sometimes even with the public interest. This amendment simply ensures licensees would be obliged to be forthcoming about the types of new and emerging technologies they are invoking in the provision of their activities when applying to the regulator for a licence.
Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 are simple amendments which also seek to insert new obligations on gambling licensees in terms of information and documentation to be provided when applying for licences. Amendment No. 181 seeks to impose a mandate on licensees to submit a data protection impact assessment. We have aired our concerns with respect to data protection, data privacy and microtargeting in the Bill. I will refrain from speaking at length on that again - the intention of this amendment is similar - other than to say it is important the regulator and licensees take seriously their obligations with regard to data protection and privacy, and the provisions of an impact assessment would assist both parties in this respect.
Amendment No. 182 separately seeks to impose an obligation on licensees to submit an algorithmic safety report which would include a statement detailing the measures it proposes to make to mitigate algorithmic harm. This is related to our concerns about data protection but, more acutely, how data is harnessed by gambling licensees and their third-party providers to keep people engaged with their services for longer periods of time, spending more money and doing so more frequently.
We tried to insert similar amendments to the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act and the Digital Services Act to place a responsibility on online service providers to set out statements regarding algorithms and their safety and how they intend to keep their service users safe from algorithmic harm. At the time we were eager to see recognition of the notion of algorithmic harm, the idea that it is not user-generated content that can create harm in online spaces but rather the practices of online services and platforms themselves. This idea of harm due to algorithms is recognised within the EU's Digital Services Act, which online service providers, including gambling licensees, are obliged to comply with, but it would be positive for it to have some acknowledgement of that role algorithms can play in inviting, maintaining and exacerbating gambling-related harms.
I certainly hear the Senator's concerns. I agree with her concerns about developments in technology, including algorithms.
Under section 32, there is an obligation on the authority to monitor and review the implementation of the Act, including the adequacy of the functions assigned to the authority and national and international developments in gambling and gambling activities and the regulation of such activities. The authority may also consider existing and emerging practices in gambling and gambling activities, whether such activities generally or a particular type of gambling or gambling activity, for the purposes of identifying issues of concern arising from such practices. The Bill goes on to say that, for the purposes of that provision, issues of concern may arise about practices that may be in accordance with the law or a code of practice applicable to such practices but where the law or code of practice as applied is giving rise, or may give rise, to an increase in compulsive or excessive gambling or is detrimental to the public interest.
There are certain several fail-safe sections there for the authority to consider emerging practices. That will include technology and how technology is being used for gambling purposes. I am satisfied the authority has the necessary power to deal with such situations.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 178:
In page 79, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
“(a) information relating to the location and type of information and communications technology hardware and software used, or to be used, to provide the gambling activity sought to be licensed, or to invite, induce or maintain participation in the activity concerned,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 179:
In page 79, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“(b) information regarding any new and emerging technologies used, or to be used, to provide the gambling activity sought to be licensed, or to invite, induce or maintain participation in the activity concerned, to include, inter alia, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and recommender systems,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 180:
In page 79, line 4, to delete “in the case of an application under section 107 only,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 181:
In page 79, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(c) a data protection impact assessment,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 182:
In page 79, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(c) an algorithmic safety report, to include a statement detailing the measures proposed to be taken to mitigate algorithmic harm to participants,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 97, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 98
Government amendment No. 183:
In page 79, line 33, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 184:
In page 79, line 34, to delete “section 99” and substitute “section 99(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 185:
In page 80, line 3, after “of” to insert “section”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 99
Government amendment No. 186:
In page 80, line 19, to delete “An application” and substitute the following:
“(1) An application”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 187:
In page 80, line 23, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 188:
In page 80, lines 25 and 26, to delete “ or for renewal of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose under section 115”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 189:
In page 80, line 35, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 190:
In page 80, line 37, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 191:
In page 80, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(e) where an application was not previously made—
(i) in respect of a premises to provide a gambling activity from that premises in the State and it is now proposed that the activity be provided pursuant to a Business to Consumer gambling licence from that premises, in the case of any premises that is not a relevant premises, the information and documentation specified in section 95(1), and, in the case of a relevant premises, the name and address of the relevant premises concerned, or
(ii) subject to subsection (2), to permit children on a premises but it is now proposed to do so, the information specified in section 95(2),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 192:
In page 80, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(f) subject to subsection (2), where an application was not previously made to provide an automated teller machine on the premises but it is now proposed to do so, the information specified in section 95(3),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 193:
In page 80, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(g) where an application was not previously made to provide the activity off the premises through the licensee or another person whether that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee and it is now proposed to do so, a statement to that effect and the reasons why it is considered necessary,
(h) where an application was not previously made that an employee, servant or agent of a licensee referred to in paragraph (g) may include a child, the reasons for such inclusion,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 194:
In page 80, line 39, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 195:
In page 81, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(2) Paragraph (e)(ii) or (f) of subsection (1) shall, in the case of a relevant premises, only apply where the application for the renewal of a gambling licence concerned is made by Rásaíocht Con Eireann or Horse Racing Ireland or a company or subsidiary of Horse Racing Ireland and the premises concerned are a relevant premises.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 99, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 100
Government amendment No. 196:
In page 81, after line 40, to insert the following:
“(6) Where subparagraph (i) or (ii), or both, of section 93(1)(j) or paragraph (g) or (h), or both, of section 99(1) apply in respect of an application made under section 112, 113 or 115, the Authority may, for the purpose of enabling it to make a determination of the matters concerned under section 114 or 115, as the case may be, request such further information from the proposed licensee or licensee concerned as the Authority considers necessary for that purpose.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 100, as amended, agreed to.
Section 101 agreed to.
SECTION 102
Government amendment No. 197:
In page 82, after line 39, to insert the following:
“(3) Where the Authority grants an application under section 111, 111, 116 or 122 in respect of a gambling licence and the effect of granting the application concerned is that the information specified in the licence concerned is no longer up to date, the Authority shall, within 14 days of granting the application, re-issue the gambling licence to the licensee concerned with the updated information.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 198:
In page 83, line 1, to delete “applies” and substitute “or (3) applies”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 102, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 103 to 105, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 106
Government amendment No. 199:
In page 86, line 35, to delete “or both,” and substitute “or both, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 106, as amended, agreed to.
Section 107 agreed to.
SECTION 108
Amendments Nos. 200 to 213, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 200:
In page 87, lines 29 to 35, to delete all words from and including “(1) An” in line 29 down to and including line 35 and substitute the following:
“(1) A person may make an application for a lottery licence for a once-off lottery under this section where the lottery will be held in a calendar year during which year the person will not hold another such lottery.”.
I advise the House that I may introduce some minor amendments to the Bill on Report Stage to address any remaining technical issues and corrections. I may need to bring further amendments to provide for consequential amendments to other Departments' legislation and related matters.
Amendment No. 200 clarifies that a person may make an application to hold a once-off lottery in each calendar year.
Amendment No. 201 specifies that an application must be made at least 30 days before the date on which it is proposed to hold the lottery.
Amendment No. 202 provides that an application must specify the date on which it is intended to hold the lottery.
Amendment No. 203 provides that relevant premises as defined by the Bill shall be exempt from assessment by the authority.
Amendment No. 204 provides that a newly issued gambling licence must include details of all betting, gaming and lottery activities, and the number of gaming machines that may be operated pursuant to that licence, and must specify the premises in respect of which the licence has been issued.
Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 provide that where the authority has determined that ATMs and-or children may be on a licensee’s premises, any additional condition must be specified within the licence.
Amendment No. 207 provides that the authority shall make a determination to renew an in-person gambling licence having assessed the premises and found them suitable to provide a gambling activity from.
Amendment No. 208 provides that a renewed licence must include details of all betting, gaming and lottery activities and the number of gaming machines that may be operated pursuant to that licence, and must specify any premises in respect of which the licence has been issued.
Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 provide that where the authority has determined that children may enter or where ATMs may be located on a licensee's premises when renewing a licence that authorisation and any conditions imposed by the authority must be included in the renewed licence.
Amendment No. 211 provides for a correct reference to section 99(1)(b)(ii).
Amendment No. 212 provides that the holder of an in-person gambling licence may apply to the authority to have additional premises added to their existing licence and the obligations on the authority concerning the processing of that application.
Amendment No. 213 reorganises the wording of section 111 by inserting a new subsection (4) and provides that an application to vary the activities provided pursuant to the licence must be accompanied by the appropriate fee.
Regarding amendment No. 201, I welcome the cut from 60 days to 30 days. It always seems to me to be a ridiculously long period. I know that application is currently made with An Garda Síochána. There may be times when we do not need 30 days to make that application. Given that we are talking about raffles for good causes and all that kind of thing, would it not make sense - this may be something to consider for Report Stage - for the standard period to be 30 days but that it could be reduced by the regulator if she sees fit or if there is not a need for the full period to be satisfied?
Further to what Senator Ward has said, regarding amendments Nos. 200 and 201, as I understand it at the moment the application is made to the Garda Síochána. That has caused problems for certain charity groups and community groups. Will it still be done through the Garda Síochána or will the regulator take that on?
Amendment No. 200 mentions a once-off lottery where the lottery will not be held in a calendar year during which the person runs another such lottery. Does that again refer to the charity groups Senator Ward mentioned? Some charity groups may run two raffles in the one year. Will that person be allowed to apply for a second raffle if they are having one early in the year and one later in the year? It is very important to those small community groups that I know of and that I am sure the Minister of State knows of that these raffles can go ahead.
I hear both Senators' comments.
I will certainly give it further consideration. As I said, the amendment here proposes a reduction from 60 days to 30 days. I am not necessarily against a shorter period being available. Of course, there are the fallback sections within the legislation that allow the regulator to make representations to the Minister to have any amendments that are necessary by way of statutory instrument. It is an important part of this legislation that we have tried to give the authority the administrative powers necessary to make changes, rather than have to come back for primary legislation.
It is similar in relation to duration of raffles. Any necessary changes can be recommended by the authority to the Minister as well so that we can make changes as quickly as possible and as necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 200:
In page 87, lines 29 to 35, to delete all words from and including “(1) An” in line 29 down to and including line 35 and substitute the following:
“(1) A person may make an application for a lottery licence for a once-off lottery under this section where the lottery will be held in a calendar year during which year the person will not hold another such lottery.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 201:
In page 88, line 2, to delete “60 days” and substitute “30 days”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 202:
In page 88, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(i) the date on which it is intended to hold the lottery,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 108, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 109
Government amendment No. 203:
In page 88, line 28, to delete “where section 95 applies,” and substitute “where section 93(1)(h) (i)* applies in respect of a premises that is not a relevant premises,”.
[*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 154.]
Government amendment No. 204:
In page 88, to delete lines 36 and 37, and in page 89, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:
“(a) shall specify—
(i) the relevant betting activities, including the event, series of events or class of events in respect of which the persons may provide pool betting, the relevant games or the relevant lottery, as the case may be, that may be provided pursuant to the licence,
(ii) where relevant games may be provided pursuant to the licence and the games are to be provided through a gaming machine, the number of gaming machines that may be used to provide those games, and
(iii) the premises in respect of which the Authority has made a determination referred to in subsection (1)(b) and any relevant premises specified under section 93(1)(h)(i)*,”.
[*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 154.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 205:
In page 89, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(b) where applicable, shall specify that children are permitted on the premises in accordance with a determination made under subsection (1) of section 97* subject to the conditions (if any) imposed under subsection (3) of that section,”.
[*This is a reference to a section proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 176.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 206:
In page 89, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(c) where applicable, specify that an automated teller machine or machines is or are permitted on the premises in accordance with a determination made under subsection (1) of section 98* subject to the conditions (if any) imposed under subsection (3) of that section, and”.
[*This is a reference to a section proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 177.]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 109, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 110
Government amendment No. 207:
In page 90, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“(2) Where section 99(1)(e)(i)* applies in respect of a premises that is not a relevant premises, the Authority shall make a determination under section 96 as to whether the premises where it is proposed to provide a relevant gambling activity is suitable for use for that activity.”.
[*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 192.]
Government amendment No. 208:
In page 90, to delete lines 10 to 13 and substitute the following:
“(a) shall specify—
(i) the relevant betting activities, including the event, series of events or class of events in respect of which the persons may provide pool betting, the relevant games or the relevant lottery, as the case may be, that may be provided pursuant to the licence,
(ii) where relevant games may be provided pursuant to the licence and the games are to be provided through a gaming machine, the number of gaming machines that may be used to provide those games, and
(iii) the premises in respect of which the Authority has made a determination referred to in subsection (2)* and any relevant premises specified under section 99(1)(e)(i)**,”.
[*This is a reference to a subsection proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 208.] [*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 192.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 209:
In page 90, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(b) where applicable, specify that children are permitted on the premises in accordance with a determination made under subsection (2) of section 97* subject to the conditions (if any) imposed under subsection (3) of that section,”.
[*This is a reference to a section proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 176.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 210:
In page 90, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(c) where applicable, specify that an automated teller machine or machines is or are permitted on the premises in accordance with a determination made under subsection (2) of section 98* subject to the conditions (if any) imposed under subsection (3) of that section, and”.
[*This is a reference to a section proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 177.] *211. In page 90, line 22, to delete “section 99” and substitute “section 99(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 211:
In page 90, line 22, to delete “section 99” and substitute “section 99(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 110, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendment No. 212:
In page 91, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“Application by licensee of in-person gambling licence to add premises to licence
111. (1) A licensee of an in-person gambling licence may apply to the Authority to provide a relevant gambling activity from a premises that is not specified in the licence concerned under section 109(2)(a)(iii)* or 110(2)(a)(iii)**.
(2) An application under subsection (1) shall—
(a) be made in such form and manner as the Authority may specify,
(b) in the case of a premises that is not a relevant premises, be accompanied by the information and documentation specified in section 95(1),
(c) in the case of a relevant premises, specify the name and address of the relevant premises concerned, and
(d) where applicable, be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Authority under section 37.
(3) Where an application under subsection (1) relates to a premises that is not a relevant premises, the Authority shall make a determination under section 96 as to whether the premises where it is proposed to provide a relevant gambling activity is suitable for use for that activity.
(4) Where an application under subsection (1) relates to a relevant premises, the Authority shall, where the application concerned complies with paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of subsection (2), grant the application insofar as the application relates to the relevant premises.
(5) Where the Authority refuses to grant an application under this section in respect of a premises that is not a relevant premises, it shall notify the licensee concerned within 14 days of the date of the decision and the notice shall state—
(a) the reasons for the decision,
(b) that the licensee is entitled to appeal against the decision of the Authority in accordance with Part 9, and
(c) the period within which such an appeal may be brought in accordance with that Part.”.
[*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 205.] [**This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 209.]
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 111
Government amendment No. 213:
In page 92, to delete lines 4 to 7 and substitute the following:
“(4) An application under this section shall—
(a) be made in such form and manner, and be accompanied by such information and supporting documentation, as the Authority may specify,
(b) in the case of an application referred to in subsection (1)(b) or (c), specify the number of gaming machines proposed to be used, and
(c) where applicable, be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Authority under section 37.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 111, as amended, agreed to.
Section 112 agreed to.
SECTION 113
Amendments Nos. 214 to 228, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
These amendments relate to charitable or philanthropic licences. Amendment No. 214 clarifies that a person may make an application to hold a once-off lottery in each calendar year. Amendment No. 215 provides that an applicant must specify the date on which they intend to hold the lottery. Amendment No. 216 specifies that a person wishing to hold a once-off lottery must apply for a licence at least 30 days before the date on which it is proposed to hold the lottery, rather than 60 days as was originally provided by the Bill. I should point out that once a year refers specifically to lotteries.
Section 114 provides for the ability of the authority to determine an application for a charitable or philanthropic licence while amendment No. 217 is a technical amendment to adjust the section numbering referred to in subsection (1) to reflect the addition of a new subsection (2) by amendment No. 219.
Amendment No. 218 is also a technical amendment to delete a paragraph that refers to a section that no longer applies to this type of licence. Amendment No. 219 inserts a new subsection (2) into section 114, to provide that the authority must determine whether the applicant may operate away from the premises specified on the licence, via its members or agents, and if children may sell tickets on behalf of the applicant, for example on behalf of a school, club or local organisation.
Amendment No. 220 tidies and updates the wording in the former subsection (2), now subsection (3)(b), to provide that a charitable or philanthropical licence shall specify whether it authorises the holder to provide gambling activities from a premises, away from a premises or by remote means or by a combination of these. Amendment No. 221 inserts a missing "or" at the end of the former subsection (3)(a), now subsection (4)(a), while amendment No. 222 deletes "and now we do not reference" from the Bill.
Amendment 223 is a technical amendment to adjust the subsection numbering referred to in subsection (1) to reflect the addition of a new subsection (2) by amendment No. 224, while amendment No. 224 inserts a new subsection (2) in this section 115 to provide that the authority must determine whether the applicant seeking to renew their licence may operate away from the premises specified in the licence via its members or agents, and if children may sell tickets on behalf of the applicant, for example on behalf of a school, club or other organisation.
Amendment No. 225 updates the wording of the former subsection (2), now subsection (3)(b), to provide that where the authority is a charitable or philanthropic licence, that licence shall specify whether is authorises the holder to provide gambling activities from a premises, away from a premises via remote means or by a combination of these and whether children are permitted to act on behalf of the licensee.
Amendment No. 228 restructures section 116 to provide that an application to bear a charitable or philanthropic licence must be in the form and manner specified by the authority and accompanied by the relevant application fee specified under section 37.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 215:
In page 93, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(i) specify the date on which it is intended to hold the activity,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 216:
In page 93, line 34, to delete “60 days” and substitute “30 days”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 113, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have a question on the section. The Minister of State said that the section was related to philanthropic and charitable organisations. What exactly is covered by that definition? It does not appear to be defined in either the Part or the Chapter, but I may be wrong. Can the Minister of State clarify exactly what is meant by that?
It is not defined within the legislation. It is carried over from the previous piece of legislation. It is in the one that was brought forward and passed by the then Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton. Philanthropic is wider than simply sports organisations. It would include other types of organisations as well. Charitable is specifically mentioned, and then philanthropic, so it could be a sporting organisation but it could be, for example, a community group raising funds for a local community centre or something like that. It is deliberately designed to be fairly wide. They have to apply to the regulator and then the regulator will decide whether or not it is in fact for philanthropic purposes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 114
Government amendment No. 217:
In page 94, line 6, to delete “subsections (2) and (3)” and substitute “subsections (2)*, (2) and (3)”.
[*This is a reference to a subsection proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 220.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 218:
In page 94, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the following: “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 219:
In page 94, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(2) Where subparagraphs (i) or (ii), or both, of section 93(1)(j)* apply in respect of an application made under section 112 or 113, the Authority shall, at the same time as granting a licence under subsection (1), having regard to the reasons specified under section 93(1)(j)* and any further information obtained under section 100(6)**, make a determination—
(a) as to whether the relevant activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose can be provided off the premises through the licensee or another person where that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee, and
(b) where applicable, as to whether children are permitted to act as an employee, servant or agent of the licensee.”.
[*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 156.]
[**This is a reference to a subsection proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 197.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 220:
In page 94, to delete lines 30 to 32 and substitute the following:
“(b) shall specify where the relevant gambling activity referred to in paragraph (a) may be provided—
(i) from one or more premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity,
(ii) from one or more premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity and off the premises through the licensee or another person where that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee,
(iii) by remote means, or (iv) in the manner specified in subparagraphs (i) and (iii) or subparagraphs (ii) and (iii),
(c) where applicable, shall specify that children are permitted to act as an employee, servant or agent of the licensee for the purpose of providing a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose, referred to in paragraph (a), off the premises, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 221:
In page 94, line 37, to delete “paragraphs,” and substitute “paragraphs, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 222:
In page 95, to delete lines 1 and 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 114, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 115
Government amendment No. 223:
In page 95, line 15, to delete “subsections (2) and (3)” and substitute “subsections (2)*, (2) and (3)”.
[*This is a reference to a subsection proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 225.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 224:
In page 95, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(2) Where paragraph (g)* or (h)*, or both, of section 99(1) apply in respect of an application made under subsection (1), the Authority shall, at the same time as renewing a licence under that subsection, having regard to the reasons specified under paragraphs (g)* or (h)*, or both, of section 99(1) as the case may be, and any further information obtained under section 100(6)**, make a determination—
(a) as to whether the relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose can be provided off the premises through the licensee or another person where that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee, and
(b) where applicable, as to whether children are permitted to act as an employee, servant or agent of the licensee.”.
[*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 194.]
[**This is a reference to a subsection proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 197.]
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 225:
In page 95, to delete lines 34 to 36 and substitute the following:
“(b) shall specify where the relevant gambling activity referred to in paragraph (a) may be provided—
(i) from one or more premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity,
(ii) from one or more premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity and off the premises through the licensee or another person where that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee,
(iii) by remote means, or
(iv) in the manner specified in subparagraphs (i) and (iii) or subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), (c) where applicable, shall specify that children are permitted to act as an employee, servant or agent of the licensee for the purpose of providing a relevant gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose, referred to in paragraph (a), off the premises, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 226:
In page 96, line 5, to delete “section 114(1)(a),” and substitute “section 114(1)(a), or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 227:
In page 96, to delete lines 6 to 9.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 115, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 116
Government amendment No. 228:
In page 97, to delete lines 16 to 18 and substitute the following:
“(2) An application under subsection (1) shall—
(a) be made in such form and manner, and be accompanied by such information and supporting documentation, as the Authority shall specify, and
(b) where applicable, be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Authority under section 37.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 116, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 117
Government amendment No. 229:
In page 98, line 27, to delete “subsection (4)” and substitute “subsection (5)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 230:
In page 98, line 32, to delete “subsection (4)” and substitute “subsection (5)”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 117, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 118
Government amendment No. 231:
In page 99, lines 25 and 26, to delete “in accordance with section 117(4)” and substitute “under section 117(5)”
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 232:
In page 99, lines 30 and 31, to delete “in accordance with section 117(4)” and substitute “under section 117(5)”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 118, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 119 to 121, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 122
Government amendment No. 233:
In page 103, to delete lines 18 to 20 and substitute the following:
“(2) An application under subsection (1) shall—
(a) be made in such form and manner, and be accompanied by such information and supporting documentation, as the Authority shall specify, and
(b) where applicable, be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Authority under section 37.”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 122, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 123 and 124 agreed to.
SECTION 125
Amendments Nos. 234 to 243, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 241 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 240. Amendments Nos. 234 to 243, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 234:
In page 104, to delete lines 32 to 35.
Amendment No. 234 deletes section 125(g). This paragraph is no longer needed in the Bill due to the changes to the application process and assessment of premise provisions for a charitable or philanthropic licence.
Amendment No. 235 amends section 126 to provide that where an applicant provides information to the authority pursuant to section 95 or seeks to add additional premises to their licence under the new section 111, the licensee is obliged to notify the authority of any changes specified under subsection 2 to any of the premises listed in the licence. Section 126 provides that a licensee of a remote gambling licence must notify the authority of any significant changes to its IT systems. Amendment No. 236 removes this requirement for charitable or philanthropic licences.
Amendment No. 237 replaces the existing section 128 and provides that a business to consumer licence is granted subject to the licensee maintaining segregated customer accounts and complying with any additional conditions prescribed in respect of children on the premises, any conditions relating to ATMs and the requirement to notify the authority of any changes to a premises and that their premises remains suitable to provide gambling activities from.
Amendment No. 238 provides that our segregated customer accounts provisions apply to both account holders who gamble online with the licensee and in-person participants.
With regard to amendment No. 239 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins, unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment. The purpose of section 130, relating to segregated customer accounts, is to ensure that participants' accounts are held separately from the rest of the licensee's operating accounts. Therefore, deposit limits do not apply in the case.
Amendment No. 240 updates section 132 to provide that all participants in a game provided pursuant to a gaming licence under section 84 or a charitable or philanthropic licence must have an equal chance at being successful at the gambling activity. This amendment will ensure that no participant, including the licensee, will have an unfair advantage over other participants.
I can see from the wording of amendment No. 241 that Senators Wall, Hoey, Moynihan and Sherlock are seeking to bring clarity to the role of the licensee when the licensee participates in a game with other people playing. This wording reflects the principles underpinning section 9A(6)(a) of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 as amended. In preparing section 132, my officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel carefully considered the provisions and the intention of the 1956 Act, in that all participants in gaming for the purpose of gambling would have equal chances when playing against one other. The Senators will have seen from the list of amendments that I am bringing my own amendment to section 132 which does the same as theirs to ensure that licensees cannot have an unfair advantage over the other participants in the game. We are all on the same page and seek to reflect the intention of the relevant section of the 1956 Act. Given that amendment No. 240, brought forward by the Government, amends the section for the same purpose, I cannot accept amendment No. 241, although I do accept the spirit and the intention. I hope they will accept my reasoning and withdraw it.
Amendment No. 242 provides that it shall be a condition of a one-off lottery licence that the lottery be held on the day specified when applying for the licence.
Amendment No. 243 inserts a new section into the Bill that provides an obligation on licensees not to engage, permit or employ a child to act on a licensee’s behalf except where authorised by the authority in the case of a charitable or philanthropic licensee. Any licensee that breaches this obligation may face significant administrative sanctions, including a financial penalty, a suspension or a revocation of a gambling licence or the imposition of a condition, including restrictions on a gambling licence. Furthermore, licensees may also be subject to the provisions of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996, as amended by this Bill, if they employ a child in the context of the provision of a gambling activity.
Amendment No. 239 seek to add deposit limits as a regulation for segregated customer accounts. It is simple and sensible amendment. Throughout our amendments we have tried to reasonably mitigate against gambling harms. It has been referenced many times by several Senators throughout the course of this debate. Many of us know people who have lost the entirety of their savings or their home as a result of gambling addiction. This amendment would seek to address that risk. Deposit limits are a suitable regulation to impose on customer accounts. We hope the amendment can be considered in this context, although the Minister of State has already outlined his intention as regards the amendment.
The Minister has clarified the situation regarding our amendment No. 241 and his amendment No. 240. I am happy with amendment No. 240.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 125, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 235:
In page 105, to delete lines 15 to 24 and subtitute the following:
“Notice to Authority of change of information given under section 95(1)
126. (1) A licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence who provides a relevant gambling activity from one or more premises in the State and to whom section 95(1) applied when making an application for the licence concerned, on renewal of that licence or when making an application under section 111, shall notify the Authority of a change, referred to in subsection (2), to the information provided under that section in respect of the premises concerned.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 126 deleted.
SECTION 127
Government amendment No. 236:
In page 105, lines 26 and 27, to delete “and a licensee of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 127, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 237:
In page 106, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:
“Additional conditions: Business to Consumer gambling licences
128. In addition to what is provided for in section 125, a Business to Consumer gambling licence is granted subject to the following conditions:
(a) other than a lottery licence for a once-off lottery, that the licensee of the licence shall establish and maintain a Segregated Customer Account in accordance with section 129;
(b) where children are permitted on premises in which a relevant gambling activity is or may be provided pursuant to the licence, compliance by the licensee with any conditions imposed under section 97(3);
(c) where applicable, compliance by the licensee with a determination made under subsection (1) or (2) of section 98 as to the number and location of automated teller machines permitted on a premises and compliance with any conditions imposed under subsection (3) of that section;
(d) where applicable, compliance by the licensee with section 126;
(e) where section 126(1) applies, the Authority being satisfied, following receipt of a notification under that provision, that the premises continue to be appropriate for use for the relevant gambling activity concerned.”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 128 deleted.
SECTION 129
Government amendment No. 238:
In page 106, to delete line 14 and substitute the following:
“(a) money held with a licensee by—
(i) an account-holder, or
(ii) a person (in this section referred to as an “in-person participant”) participating in a relevant gambling activity on a premises in the State,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 129, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 130
I move amendment No. 239:
In page 107, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(i) specify deposit limits for account holders in relation to their use of Segregated Customer Accounts,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 130 agreed to.
Section 131 deleted.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 240:
In page 108,between lines 4 and 5 to, insert the following:
“Additional condition: game provided under gaming licence or gambling licence for charitable or philanthropic purpose
132. In addition to what is provided for in sections 125 and 128, a gaming licence and, where a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose authorises the licensee of that licence to provide a game, that licence, is granted subject to the condition that where the participants in a game include the licensee of the licence concerned, the chance that the licensee has as a participant of winning the game and the chance that all other participants in the game have of winning the game, are equal.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 241 not moved.
Section 132 deleted.
SECTION 133
Government amendment No. 242:
In page 108, lines 18 to 20, to delete all words from and including “the” where it secondly occurs in line 18 down to and including “108” in line 20 and substitute “the lottery being held on the date specified under section 108(2)(b)(i)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 133, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 134 to 136, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 243:
In page 110, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“Obligation not to engage child as employee, servant or agent providing relevant gambling activity
137. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a licensee shall not—
(a) engage a child, or cause a child to be engaged on the licensee’s behalf, as an employee, servant or agent, to provide a relevant gambling activity, or
(b) permit a child to act as the licensee’s employee, servant or agent in providing a relevant gambling activity.
(2) A licensee of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose may engage a child or cause a child to be engaged as referred to in subsection (1)(a) and permit a child to act in the manner specified in subsection (1)(b) where it is authorised in the terms of the licence in accordance with section 114(2) or 115(2).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 137 agreed to.
SECTION 138
Amendments Nos. 244 to 259, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 244:
In page 110, line 31, to delete “regulations—” and substitute “regulations to do any or all of the following:”.
Section 138 provides the authority to make regulations to address advertising by specific types of licensees on specific media, such as television, radio and on-demand media services, on social media and video-sharing services, on websites, on apps and in print, and advertising at specific places or events, having regard to the nature and format of individual media. Amendments Nos. 244 to 249, inclusive, are drafting changes recommended by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to make the section clearer and linguistically accurate.
I cannot accept amendment No. 250 in the name of Senators Ruane and Higgins as I am satisfied that section 138(3)(b) appropriately addresses the matters raised by the Senators. I also cannot amendment No. 251 in the name of Senators Ruane and Higgins due to vagueness given the multiple media by which video games are provided. In this context, it is not possible to clearly capture and provide in the Statute Book for unclear and ever-changing concepts or provisions.
I will address amendments Nos. 252, 253, 256 and 259 together. Senators will recall that on Second Stage I indicated an intention to bring certain exemptions for charitable, philanthropic licensees from the advertising restrictions in the Bill. During the debates in the Dáil, it became apparent to me that despite the recommendation of the Oireachtas joint committee to introduce a watershed restriction on gambling advertising without an exception for charitable or philanthropic licensees, Deputies, including some members of the committee, had not considered the full consequences of the committee's recommendation. As I have repeatedly said, both I and the Government strongly support the hard work and contribution of our charities to society and the benefits many of our local organisations bring to our communities and our lives. With that in mind, I am now bringing these amendments which will exempt those licensees from the advertisement restrictions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 252 removes the restrictions on those licensees advertising on on-demand services, and amendment No. 253 removes any restrictions on charitable or philanthropic organisations advertising gambling activities on social media or video-sharing services. Amendment No. 256 permits charitable and philanthropic licensees to advertise gambling through other forms of electronic communication, such as telephone, text messages or email, while amendment No. 259 exempts charitable and philanthropic licensees from the prohibition on advertising gambling on television and radio outside of prescribed watershed provided. The only restriction that will now apply to advertising gambling activities by charitable and philanthropic licensees is that such licensees will be prohibited from using the name, trading name, or part of the name or trading name, of a business-to-consumer or business-to-business licensee, or the logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of such a licensee. This is to ensure no commercial gambling company can seek to use the charitable or philanthropic exemption to bypass the advertisement restrictions provided for in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 relate to section 141 and are technical in nature and can be taken together. Amendment No. 254 clarifies that licensees shall not advertise gambling activities by electronic communications unless they are compliant with the criteria set out in the section. Amendment No. 255 inserts the word "or" at the end of subsection (2)(a).
I cannot accept amendment No. 257 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins as I am satisfied that section 138(4)(a) appropriately addresses the matters raised by the Senators. I also cannot accept amendment No. 258 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins as I am satisfied that section 144 is proportionate and strikes a necessary balance. Furthermore, it would be impractical to enforce such a prohibition on social media services, video-sharing platform services or electronic communications.
Section 138 relates to the regulation of gambling advertisements. Amendment No. 250 simply seeks to expand on the existing provisions on the need to prevent children from gambling through advertisements to additionally stress the importance of preventing children and young people from ever developing an interest in gambling activity. It is hugely important we prevent children from gambling. The Bill contains some robust provisions regarding child protection, but we think it ought to go a bit further in terms of disrupting the development of an interest in gambling activity in the first instance, through the regulation of advertisements.
Amendment No. 251 would add video games to the list of media through which advertisements are made and that may be regulated under section 138. Pop-up advertising is prevalent in online games. This is usually the mechanism through which these games are able to generate income. As we discussed throughout this debate, video games are currently offering children an access point to gambling-like activity. While other amendments have focused on the content of those video games, we also need to ensure children are not exposed to gambling advertisements within the games themselves. It seems that the absence of video games from the list in section 138(4)(iii) is somewhat of an oversight. Will the Minister of State consider bringing his own amendment on Report Stage? I think there is an easy fix for amendment No. 251.
Amendment No. 257 seeks to expand the definition of electronic communication in this section to include the concept of push notification. A push notification is a message from a mobile application or a website that appears as a pop-up on a desktop browser, mobile phone screen or notification centre. Given that it is a direct form of communication regularly invoked by online service providers, including gambling companies, it seems pertinent that it would be included in the definition of "electronic communication".
Amendment No. 258 relates to prohibited hours for advertising and seeks to extend the start of prohibited hours for advertising from 5.30 a.m. to 3 a.m. and to include social media services, video-sharing platform services and electronic communications providers. This would bring the prohibited hours in line with prohibited hours that relate to alcohol advertisements. Again, considering both are addictive products intended for those over 18, we think it would be sensible that there would be an alignment in how advertisements are regulated. Regarding the addition of on-demand video services, social media services and video-sharing platforms, we are adding these considering the use of these platforms is highly prevalent among young people and children. The absence of their inclusion in the prohibition is an oversight. Social media services already have country-specific advertisement policies for gambling. Including them in this list would provide them with valuable guidance with regard to these policies. It is important our regulations are clear in their inclusions of services such as video-sharing platforms. Last year, the Centre for Digital Democracy, through its organisation Fairplay, placed targeted advertisements on videos for children on YouTube, despite Google saying it did not allow such advertisements. It is important our regulations are clear and unambiguous regarding online advertising of gambling and that the obligations of companies involved are unambiguous.
Regarding Government amendments Nos. 252 to 256, inclusive, which allow for philanthropic or charitable organisations to advertise on on-demand services, social media services and other media, it is fair to say this is the result of pressure that has been applied as the Bill has progressed through the Houses. Thankfully, these amendments have been made to avoid punishing sports clubs and charitable organisations. From the outset, we highlighted the fact this Bill would stop sports clubs and community organisations from raising necessary funds. The Bill, unfortunately and regrettably, conflated fundraising with gambling. The failure to address this issue would have cost local sports clubs, charities and community organisations thousands of euro in necessary funding, so we welcome these amendments that it shall not apply to those organisations.
Regarding the inclusion of the words "video games", we are satisfied that the current drafting would include anything that may be on a video game relating to gambling, but I will certainly undertake to the Senator to give it further consideration to ensure we are satisfied on the point.
On the charity and sporting sector exemptions around advertising, the joint Oireachtas committee was clear at pre-legislative scrutiny that there should not be exemptions for charity or philanthropic purposes. It was discussed by the committee, whose members, including the Sinn Féin spokesperson on justice, made it clear that they regarded those activities to be gambling activities. Nonetheless, I made it clear in the Dáil that I would bring forward amendments to make those exemptions for charity and philanthropic purposes, but we have to put protections in place. For example, we cannot have an alcohol 0.0 situation where businesses run by unscrupulous people try to take advantage of the exemptions for the charity and philanthropic sector. We had to do a lot of work to ensure those protections were put in place and we are satisfied that they were. When this legislation passes, the necessary exemptions will be there for charitable and philanthropic purposes, while robust gambling legislation will be in place to protect vulnerable people.
I remind the Senator that Sinn Féin Deputies voted against the legislation in the Dáil and we would not be discussing it today had they had their way.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 245:
In page 110, line 32, to delete “prohibiting” and substitute “prohibit”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 246:
In page 110, to delete line 33 and substitute “advertisements;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 247:
In page 110, line 34, to delete “prescribing” and substitute “prescribe”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 248:
In page 110, line 35, to delete “shown,” and substitute “shown;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 249:
In page 110, line 37, to delete “prescribing” and substitute “prescribe”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 250:
In page 111, line 9, after “gambling” to insert “and developing an interest in gambling”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 251:
In page 111, line 20, after “television,” to insert “videogame,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 138, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 139
Government amendment No. 252:
In page 112, to delete lines 24 to 26 and substitute the following:
“(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to advertising relevant content on an audiovisual on demand media service or an on-demand sound service by a licensee of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose provided that the advertising by that licensee does not include—
(a) the name or trading name, or part of the name or trading name, of a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence or a Business to Business gambling licensee, or
(b) the logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of such a licensee.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 139, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 140
Government amendment No. 253:
In page 113, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
“(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to an arrangement to advertise relevant content referred to in that subsection entered into by a licensee of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose where that arrangement ensures that the advertising shall not include—
(a) the name or trading name, or part of the name or trading name, of a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence or a Business to Business gambling licensee, or
(b) the logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of such a licensee.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 140, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 141
Government amendment No. 254:
In page 113, line 5, to delete “A licensee shall not advertise” and substitute “Subject to this section, a licensee shall not advertise”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 255:
In page 113, line 17, to delete “visible,” and substitute “visible, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 256:
In page 113, to delete lines 19 to 21 and substitute the following:
“(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to the advertising of relevant content by electronic communication by a licensee of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose provided that the advertising by that licensee does not include—
(a) the name or trading name, or part of the name or trading name, of a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence or a Business to Business gambling licensee, or
(b) the logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of such a licensee.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 257:
In page 113, line 23, after “message” to insert “, push notification”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 141, as amended, agreed to.
Section 142 agreed to.
Section 143 deleted.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 258:
In page 114, to delete lines 35 to 39, and substitute the following:
“Prohibited hours for advertising
144. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a licensee shall not enter into an arrangement (howsoever described) with an audio-visual on-demand media service, an on-demand sound service, a social media service, a video-sharing platform service, an electronic communications provider, or a broadcaster for the purposes of advertising relevant content between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on the service concerned.””.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 144
Government amendment No. 259:
In page 115, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
“(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to an arrangement to advertise relevant content referred to in that subsection entered into by a licensee of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose where the arrangement ensures that the advertising shall not include—
(a) the name or trading name, or part of the name or trading name, of a licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence or a Business to Business gambling licensee, or
(b) the logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of such a licensee.”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 144, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 145 and 146 agreed to.
Section 147 deleted.
Section 148 agreed to.
SECTION 149
Government amendment No. 260:
In page 117, line 27, to delete “section 93,” and substitute “subsection (1) of section 93,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 261:
In page 117, line 30, to delete “of that section,” and substitute “of that subsection,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 149, as amended, agreed to.
Section 150 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 262:
In page 118, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“Obligation to pay out winnings
151. A licensee to whom this Chapter applies shall not unreasonably withhold the payment of winnings.”.
Amendments Nos. 265 and 266 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 264. Amendment No. 279 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 278. Amendments Nos. 262 to 279, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment No. 262 inserts a new section 151 into the Bill to put an obligation on all licensees to not unreasonably withhold a payment of winnings.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendment No. 263 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins as the matter is sufficiently addressed by sections 157 and 158 which oblige licensees to train their staff to an authority approved standard on these issues.
I will respond together to amendments Nos. 264, 265 and 266 tabled by the Labour Party, Senators Ruane and Higgins and Fine Gael, respectively. The effect of amendment No. 266 would be to permit licensees to offer targeted inducements to specific groups of persons. This would narrow the scope of the provision too much. Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 seek to prohibit inducements entirely. The Government’s policy intention through section 152 is to prevent targeted and individualised incentives to encourage people to gamble but to permit, in a regulated manner, offers that are open to everyone. In summary, we are prohibiting targeted and individualised activities to incentivise people to gamble, such as VIP treatment and special odds. Section 152, as currently drafted, protects people from targeted, predatory practices and gives the authority and the courts the tools necessary to address such practices. It provides certainty to all parties affected by the legislation and does not inhibit licensees from engaging in common, competitive market practices such as offers to the public.
I cannot, unfortunately, accept amendment No. 267 as it touches on matters that fall under the remit of the Central Bank concerning unlicensed financial payment providers. Furthermore, it would be impractical to place such an obligation on licensees.
In respect of amendment No. 268, as Senators will be aware, section 160 relates to payment by credit card or the granting of credit facilities. Subsection (2) provides that licensees are prohibited from accepting a payment by electronic or digital means which uses money loaded from a credit card or from any other source of credit. From consultation with payment providers, I am advised that it is not technically possible to track whether an electronic or digital means of payment is funded by any form of credit other than a credit card. In this context the reference in section 160(2) to “or from any other source of credit” is redundant, is not practical and should be removed from the Bill.
Regarding amendment No. 269 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins, in drafting the Bill I consulted the Data Protection Commission which did not specify a need for such a provision to be included. On that basis, I am not satisfied a provision such as the one proposed in the Senator’s amendment is necessary.
Amendments Nos. 270 and 271 are technical amendments.
On amendment No. 272, where a licensee has closed an account and transferred the balance of the moneys to the social impact fund due to not being able to refund a person as provided for in subsection (4) and that person subsequently reappears, amendment No. 272 provides the mechanism for that person to claim a refund from the authority.
I propose to take amendments Nos. 273 to 275 together. Section 170 provides for the ability of the authority to prescribe the times when gambling can be provided remotely in the State. Section 171 provides that the authority may prescribe the times and days when an in-person gambling premises may operate and is a modernisation of the approach concerning opening hours for bookmakers originally provided for in the Betting Act 1931. Amendments Nos. 273 and 274 reword and clarify the intention behind sections 170 and 171 while clearly setting out the policies and principles the authority must consider and have regard to when making such regulations.
The new subsection (2) allows for the continuation of the opening hours for betting offices on greyhound tracks and horseracing courses, while amendment No. 275 to section 171 is a consequential amendment on foot of amendment No. 274. It amends the newly renumbered subsection (4) to refer back to subsection (3).
Amendment No. 276 refers to section 172 and provides for an offence of allowing a child on a premises where gambling activities are provided from. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that where a licensee allows his child to enter or to be on a premises in contravention of a determination by the authority to the contrary, the licensee shall be in breach of a relevant obligation and may be subject to administrative sanctions by the authority. Furthermore, should the authority consider that the breach was of a serious significance, subsection (2) provides that the authority may chose to take a criminal prosecution, and any licensee found guilty of such an offence may face a fine or up to eight years of imprisonment.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendment No. 277, in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) were included on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. The effect of the Senators' amendment would be to remove the ability of a licensee to raise a defence that they were mistaken as to the age of a person on their premises and the requirement of the court to consider if a reasonable person would be of the opinion that the child in question was of the age raised in the licensee's defence. These provisions are necessary to ensure the section is legally enforceable and complies with the requirements of due process.
Amendment No. 278 permits the authority to specify in an in-person licence that the licensee may, if they have complied with sections 109 and 110, as amended, have an ATM on their premises subject to any conditions the authority opposes.
Amendment No. 279 is similar in intention to those I am bringing forward on this matter. However, I feel the Government's amendments are slightly more comprehensive in respect of the conditions on licensees and provide the authority with a greater range of enforcement powers in respect of ATMs on their premises. It is on that basis that I cannot accept Senator Mullen's amendment.
Before I go to Senator Ruane, I welcome the guests of Senator Clonan to the Gallery. Professor John Doran, president, and the executive management team of Technological University Dublin are very welcome to the Seanad.
Amendment No. 263 seeks to insert a new section in the Bill that would place an obligation on licensees to safeguard their participants from excessive and compulsive gambling. We have mentioned on a number of occasions during the debate the fact that there exists a bit of an imbalance in the Bill with respect to the safeguarding of at-risk participants, with the responsibility for keeping participants safe being primarily placed on the participants as opposed to the licensee. This amendment tries to address this imbalance by imposing an obligation on licensees to take proactive measures to safeguard people from placing themselves at undue risk of harm. The obligation on the licensee would be to observe the gambling patterns of its users and to identify those with problematic patterns of activity. As I said earlier, gambling companies have often identified the pattern long before a person or their family has. Where a pattern like this is identified, the licensee would be mandated to cease accepting payments from a participant for a specified period; to inform that person of this matter; and to direct the person to the relevant supports. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that licensees would be prone to the potential vulnerability of its participants and to take proactive steps to keep them safe from harm.
Amendment No. 264 seeks to return section 152 to its original wording, amounting to an outright ban on gambling inducements. Senator Cassells praised the Minister in the opening debate of Committee Stage for not bending the knee to the Opposition on this Bill and he is certainly correct regarding the strong provisions around prohibitions on advertising. Unfortunately, since then, it seems the knee has been bent a little in section 152. Extern has detailed how, in its daily interactions with service users who struggle with gambling, it hears frequent stories of how relapses are triggered by offers of free bets, free spins, enhanced odds or other such inducements. These types of inducements are also an entry point into gambling for young people. There are clear examples of inducements being banned in different contexts. The national lottery is not allowed to provide tickets for free or at a reduced rate; alcohol retailers are prevented from operating happy hours or loyalty card programmes; and retailers are legally prevented from supplying voucher coupons for tobacco products. Again, these are all legal addictive products for over 18s, just like the product services being legislated for in this Bill. As such, our amendment seeks to return this section to its original wording for an outright ban on inducements. The question must be asked why an exception is being made for gambling when it comes to this.
Amendment No. 267 seeks to insert a new provision in the Bill which would place an obligation on licensees not to accept payment for gambling services from an individual using an unregulated or unauthorised financial entity. If incorporated into the Bill, gambling activities could only be paid for by an individual using funds housed or hosted in regulated and authorised financial entities. Regulated and authorised financial entities and firms are subject to greater oversight by regulatory authorities such as the Central Bank, which warned that poorly regulated financial institutions have the potential to harm customers and the wider economy. Robust financial regulation is an important tool to counteract this risk to protect consumers and the broader financial systems from that harm.
We know that regulated financial authorities, particularly legacy banks, pay very close attention to the behaviour of their customers, with particular respect to how spending patterns might affect their eligibility for products and services in the future. Certain regulated financial authorities in Ireland have additional safeguards in place that allow their customers to block the use of their bank cards for gambling services. Unregulated financial institutions are subject to less oversight and scrutiny and prone to greater levels of financial risk. Shadow banking, also known as non-banking financial intermediation or market-based finance, is one such example. Elizabeth McCaul, a member of the supervisory board of the European Central Bank, recently warned that a growth in lending by non-bank financial intermediaries is the biggest single threat to the stability of the eurozone. These institutions fall outside of traditional banking supervisory and regulatory parameters and, therefore, pose greater levels of risk for consumers and the wider economy. While there are welcome provisions in the Bill which would prevent an individual using a line of credit to pay for gambling activities, we feel the relevant section could be made much stronger to account for the risk posed to individuals using funds acquired or stored within unregulated or poorly regulated financial institutions.
Amendment No. 269 introduces an expanded obligation on remote gambling licensees such that they could not provide services to a person until they have provided information to the account holder in writing regarding how their data will be gathered, stored and processed by the licensee. This amendment reflects the spirit of many other earlier amendments regarding data protection privacy and would simply impose an obligation on licensees to be more transparent with their account holders about how their data is used.
Finally, amendment No. 277 seeks to delete certain provisions of the section of the Bill relating to the obligations of licensees not to allow children on their premises. The amendment would delete subsections (3), (4) and (5) in section 172 which provide defences for licensees who are reasonably mistaken regarding the age of a child or young person such that they permit them on the premises. We argue it should be incumbent on the licensee to establish without reasonable doubt that a person has reached the age of majority before they would be permitted onto the premises and it should not be legally permissible for a licensee to argue in their defence that they were simply mistaken.
The reason many of us are here is the normalisation of gambling on sport by gambling companies and what they have done to influence so many people, a growing number of people in this country - one in 30 or 130,000 people - who now have a gambling addiction. One of the biggest issues those who have that gambling addiction mention when I talk to them is a free bet or an "inducement" as it is referred to in this Bill. It has also been referred to my colleague. For the life of me, I cannot understand why these have been reintroduced. In his next contribution, will the Minister let us know why he has reintroduced inducements and free bets? This is a public health issue and a very serious one. As my colleague has rightly said, and as has been said to me by many of those on the front line or the coalface of dealing with gambling addiction, we do not offer free cigarettes to punters, or do we?
We do not offer alcohol-free drinks, or do we? We do not offer free tickets for the national lottery, or do we? As part of this Bill, we will reintroduce free bets for those we need to protect.
The Minister of State talks about stopping targeted bets, regulation, not having free bets for individuals and not having free bets for groups. How will that be controlled? If I am an individual with a gambling addiction, surely if one of the gambling companies advertises a free bet, I am entitled to it as much as the next person or any colleague across the road, but I will be the one who will suffer. It is not only me; the Minister of State knows for a fact that up to six people in my family will also suffer because of that free bet. I can give example after example because I have spoken to people - they have also been in contact with the Minister of State - who have lost substantial money and have then seen a free bet, a trip to the races or whatever from the gambling company they have just lost money to. How will that be stopped unless we remove these inducements and free bets from the Bill?
Neither the Labour Party nor I are against gambling. Gambling is healthy for many people but it is also a concern for a growing number. I know it is a concern for the Minister of State. I praised him for the work he has done in respect of this Bill in the past, but for the life of me I cannot see why he has to introduce free bets and inducements. We want to protect the most vulnerable. We have to do so. The only way we can protect the most vulnerable is to use this Bill to ban inducements and free bets.
I appreciate the Minister of State's comments. I will make a few points of my own. My amendment would change the section such that it would read, "A licensee may not offer a person an inducement." I want to outline some of the reasons why this proposal should be considered. First, the section as it stands fails to acknowledge that gambling is a legitimate industry in which inducements are crucial for fostering competition and attracting customers. Recent amendments, introduced on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil on 1 May 2024 permit licensees to offer inducements to the general public while prohibiting targeted offers to specific individuals or groups. Although the removal of the blanket prohibition is certainly welcome, the remaining restrictions pose significant challenges for businesses. The ability to proactively seek out and attract customers is fundamental to any business or industry, and gambling is no exception. In the highly competitive online marketplace, businesses must be able to differentiate themselves, retain customer loyalty and drive new engagement. Without the ability to communicate directly with potential customers, gambling companies are left at a significant competitive disadvantage, particularly in an industry where other forms of entertainment and digital services are aggressively marketing to similar audiences.
If companies are unable to offer inducements in a way that targets specific customers, like personalised offers or promotions, they risk losing ground to black market operators that do not adhere to the same regulatory standards. The black market has no responsible gambling measures. It offers no consumer protection. It contributes nothing to the Exchequer. Without competitive inducements, customers are likely to turn to these more unregulated alternatives, which not only undermines many of the public policy objectives that the Government and this legislation are trying to achieve, but also creates a greater risk of problem gambling and financial harm, which is one of the reasons I tabled the amendment in my name.
It is essential, in the context of the amendment, to recognise that in today's digital economy, all businesses are expected to seek out customers through a range of marketing and promotional tools. Indeed, industries across the board, including retail, travel and hospitality, use these targeted offers and loyalty programmes as a basic and standard business practice. Whether it is a loyalty card, €10 or €50 off or any other sort of promotional inducement, these tactics are normal in other industries and are an accepted way of attracting and indeed retaining a customer. I tabled the amendment specifically because I do not think the gambling industry should be singled out when other sectors are able to operate under the same principles.
Customers expect inducements. Many existing online gamblers actively seek out these promotions and have grown accustomed to receiving them. A sudden halt to inducements would likely cause customers to search for them elsewhere, either from foreign or indeed unregulated operators, putting them at greater risk and reducing regulatory oversight. It is another reason why I decided to table the amendment.
I accept the points the Minister of State made. I am keen to hear his response to a few of the points that have been made by Senators.
I want to stick close to the amendment as I conclude. On a more practical level, the Bill and section 154 in particular do not clearly define what constitutes an inducement. It leaves a substantial regulatory gap. This ambiguity places too much burden on the regulator. Given the subjective importance of inducements to different stakeholders, including customers, businesses, disordered gamblers and public health advocates, any regulatory decision could lead to unintended consequences. Poorly defined or overly restrictive rules would hamper legitimate operators. They could drive customers to seek unregulated alternatives and undermine the core objectives not only of this section but of the Bill as a whole. That is essentially where I am coming from. Restricting this ability not only threatens the competitive landscape but it risks increasing participation in unregulated gambling activities, which I believe carry far greater harm both socially and financially. It is crucial to try to strike a balance. That is what I have tried to do with this amendment, because I want it to protect consumers while allowing legitimate operators to compete effectively in a highly regulated and responsible manner. That is why I tabled the amendment.
I regard the provisions in section 152 as shameful and indefensible. If, instead of subsection (1), there was a general prohibition on inducements, I would take the section seriously. Instead, subsection (1) states that it is lawful to offer inducements, provided that they comply with ministerial regulations. I wonder why it is necessary to state as a matter of law in this land that it is lawful to offer people inducements to gamble. I have said from the beginning that this legislation is designed to increase gambling. Subsection (1) states:
Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a licensee to whom this Chapter applies may offer the general public a benefit or advantage, the intent or effect of which is, either directly or indirectly, to encourage participation in gambling ...
What purpose is served by that? Why is the Government doing it? Why is the Government stating that it will now be lawful to offer inducements to the public to gamble? Who is the Government trying to protect? Who is it trying to discourage from gambling if it says as a general principle of Irish law that this activity is lawful? The Government does not say it to publicans. It does not say to hand out free drink on Dawson Street or whatever. In fact, it says the opposite, namely that pubs cannot have happy hours and so on, but it does say that in relation to this.
It is disgraceful that this section is in the form it is in. The Minister of State may say that the Government will bring in this or that regulation. That is for the benefit of the legal profession, to find loopholes and ways of circumventing it. What Minister in the Government is saying that they want it to be the law of the land that licensees in gambling can go out, as a general principle, to offer inducements to people to gamble? What common good purpose is served by such a provision? None. It is disgraceful. I said before in this debate that this was a Bill designed to increase and facilitate gambling. Nothing is clearer in that regard than this provision. If somebody says to me that the online establishments in Britain offer free bets and this, that and the other, and we want to give our lads a fair basis on which to compete with them, that, too, is disgraceful.
There is no defence for this section, and I completely support the amendments being made to it. I regard it as a matter of complete shame that this section is being enshrined in Irish law. I was Minister for Justice. I fought the gambling interest in Ireland. I fought the people who had the chequebooks and who influenced Government policy against my wishes at the time, who set up poker clubs and the like in Dublin. I have called publicly and consistently to close down the casinos being operated in breach of the 1956 Act, and there has been silence. However, this section shows that for somebody somewhere, money talks in Ireland. The people who want to make money out of the poor, and the fat cats who want to get fatter, have persuaded an Irish Government to say it is an aim of the Irish Government, in law, to allow people to offer inducements to other people to gamble. It is disgraceful. It is repugnant and it should be a matter of shame for these Houses that this section has been put before this House. No defence has been articulated in favour of it. Nobody has said it is necessary to give licensees the right to give inducements to the public. Nobody is saying that.
If there were not a Whip in this House, and there should not be, and there were a free vote, Senator McGahon and the rest of them on the Government benches would say this is an absurd proposition. It will be voted through on a guillotine tonight. Shame on those who have put this into law and who are intent on putting it into law. Why? Whose voice is louder in Ireland? Is it the gambling industry that wants to have the right to offer inducements to the public, or those in Ireland who want to protect people, particularly the most vulnerable people, from being lured back into gambling by having free offers and free bets given to them? I know something about this. I have some experience professionally of the methods and so on of gambling companies. I know the strategies they apply to get people back to play poker, the people who have lapsed and have gone away. I know what they do. I see what they are doing on satellite channels in England. I appeal to the Minister of State to accept the amendments that have been tabled to this. It is common sense. We are not coming from some sort of old-fashioned, conservative and reactionary position. We are simply saying it should never be the case that Ireland should announce, as a general proposition, that people who are licensees in gambling have a general right, unless prevented from doing so by particular regulations, to offer inducements to people to get involved in gambling. Anybody who understands the damage gambling does will see that this is crazy. Why do I not say the heroin pushers have the right to offer free samples? Why do I not say the publicans have the right to offer free samples? Nobody would think of it except in this Bill.
Will the Senator give me time to respond?
The only person who should be ashamed here this evening is Senator McDowell. He has made outrageous allegations against my good name, the officials in the Department of Justice and the Government, effectively accusing people of being bought and paid for with no evidence whatsoever. It is a shameful thing to come in here and make an accusation with zero evidence.
Listen back to your own transcript.
I respect your officials. I think their masters are being bought.
Listen back. Let me respond. I did not interrupt you.
Let the Minister of State speak, please.
It is absolutely shameful.
What you have tried to do in here is to relitigate your own failings to regulate the gambling industry when you were in a position to do so on several occasions, and you did not do so.
A certain party refused to allow me to do it. I will name some day in this House the people who influenced your party to prevent any reform.
You did not do so. This section is here for a particular reason. We sought to ban inducements but to allow promotions, as the Oireachtas committee did not propose the banning of promotions in the gambling industry. I have amendments here from both sides. Some are saying I have gone too far, and others say I am not going far enough. People are entitled to make legitimate arguments and amendments and they have done so, which the Senator has not done, by the way. The Oireachtas all-party committee did not propose that. We looked to ban individual inducements towards people and that is what we are doing, specifically that, "A licensee may not offer a person or specific group of persons an inducement." It can be offered to the general public, which is the same as a general promotion. I do not support the complete ban of all promotions in the gambling industry. Maybe that is what will come down the line, but that comes from a reasoned and thought-out position, not the shrill allegations the Senator has made. I am happy to stand up against those shrill allegations against my own good name and reputation, that of my officials and that of the Government.
It is nothing to do with the Minister of State's officials and he should not hide behind them. I respect the officials in his Department, and I respect their judgment. I do not believe for one minute that they favour this kind of nonsense.
Picking up on other Senators’ comments throughout the day, it is important to say there is stuff that does not make sense to me. Senator McGahon talked about pushing people into the black market of gambling. I would like to know what that black market is, how big it is and what it is because I am telling him now that I am surrounded by gamblers, by people who gamble in a healthy way and in an unhealthy way. If it is poker in someone's house that they are organising, that stuff happens, but there is not some big black market that is waiting to swoop people from the gambling industry which has a massive stronghold on gambling in the country. That kind of scaremongering is not okay when we are talking about the harm to people's lives from gambling. Free bets bring people back into gambling and are purposely used to entice people back, whether or not they are offered in a general way. It is like me going into a roomful of smokers, generally offering cigarettes and hoping the person who has an addiction is not somehow inspired to take one when I am generally offering a promotion.
It is also said this is to create competition. The gambling industry is not the same as any other sector and should never be treated the same. If we say they cannot engage in promotion, money off or loyalty cards, it is not like a clothes shop, a shoe shop or getting your hair done. It is not these things that do not cause any harm in your life. We cannot say that if it happens for every other sector, why should it not happen for the gambling sector, because that completely ignores and undermines the harm gambling does. It has no similarities to other industries apart from other addictive behaviours like cigarettes and alcohol, the places we do regulate, as has been said, with regard to happy hours.
This is disingenuously creating fear about black markets and losing customers. I have never heard somebody in my entire life tell me that because Paddy Power did not give them a free bet today, they are never going back there again. When has anyone ever heard such a thing? It does not happen. If River Island does not give me that euro off, I will not say I am not shopping there again because they did not have a discount on this Christmas. These are such ridiculous contributions to make when we are talking about the harm to people's lives. I understand people want to argue in particular directions, but I ask that they remember the harm on the other end. When they are trying to make arguments against particular things, they should do them in a thought-out way that does not just undermine the whole principle of what we are trying to do in protecting people's lives.
I cannot believe one of the contributions tonight, because it is straight out of the gambling companies’ playbook as to why they should get free bet inducements. To suggest that should happen in this country when we have 130,000 people with a gambling addiction is wrong. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I have to say once again that this is a public health issue. I accept what the Minister of State says in his reply but I cannot accept the reasoning behind it because gambling companies are not the same as other companies. It has been perfectly outlined by my colleague, Senator Ruane. I deal with many people, who have also gone to the Minister of State, regarding gambling addiction. It is not just a person we are talking about here. We might have 130,000 people, which is the figure the ESRI has told us. However, up to six people in a family are affected as well. What are we going to do? The Minister of State has not explained how we are going to regulate the one-for-all voucher that goes across everybody. If I have the addiction, I am not being targeted, but it is there for me to take and that is unacceptable. It is totally unacceptable that I can turn around to a gambling company and take a free bet. When you talk to those with the addiction, that is the one thing they fear most. They really fear the free bet and the inducement because that triggers them once again.
That is the issue that we, as legislators, should be addressing here tonight. We should be banning free bets and inducements once and for all to allow those people and, more importantly, the six people who are affected with them, space so they can come out of that addiction, or try to come out of that addiction, as hard as that is for so many of them. I know that the Minister of State has spoken to them and I know that they have told him that this is wrong, so for the life of me I cannot understand why the Government is standing over it.
As it is now 8.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day: "That amendment No. 262 is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Government amendments undisposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, other than sections 170 and 178 which are hereby deleted, the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee, Schedules 1 and 2, as amended, are hereby agreed to in Committee and the Title, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee."
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Daly, Paul.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- McGahon, John.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Níl
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Seán Kyne; Níl, Senators Michael McDowell and Fintan Warfield.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 23rd September, 2024 for the remainder of this Seanad term and, accordingly, has not voted in this division. Senator Catherine Ardagh has notified the Cathaoirleach that she has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave and, accordingly, has not voted in this division.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 8.44 p.m. go dtí 9.30 a.m., Déardaoin, an 3 Deireadh Fómhair 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.44 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 October 2024.
