Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, 12 to 14, inclusive, and 37 are related and may be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 14, to delete lines 21 to 28 and substitute the following: “ “advertise” includes advertise by means of an image, sound or text;”.

As I noted on Committee Stage, I will bring forward a number of amendments to update and clarify some of the definitions in the Bill on Report Stage. Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 7, inclusive, 12 to 14, inclusive, and 37 are Government amendments that are technical in nature.

Amendment No. 1 updates the definition of the term "advertise" in the Bill. It is necessary to facilitate the amendments and clarifications to the advertiser provisions outlined later in the Bill.

Amendment No. 3 provides an updated modernisation definition of a gaming machine in the Bill. The existing definition, originally introduced in the Finance Act 1975, is not compatible with the approach of the Bill and needs to be replaced with an updated definition that reflects modern gaming machines.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, 12 to 14, inclusive, and 37. Amendment No. 5 updates references in the Bill to the National Lottery Act 2013 with a short reference.

Amendment No. 6 clarifies, for the purpose of the Bill, that a participant is defined as a person participating in a relevant gambling activity. It does not include a reference to a person participating in a meeting of a board of the authority as outlined in section 18(2) or a person participating in an oral hearing conducted by an adjudication officer outlined in section 202(14).

Amendments Nos. 7 and 37 clarify that application store services are online services and ensures the consistent use of the term throughout the Bill. Amendment No. 12 removes the reference to advertising betting in the definition of providing a betting activity. The amendment is necessary to ensure that not just licensees providing betting and bookmaking activities can advertise such activities or be held liable and responsible for any breaches of the advertising obligations under Part 6.

Amendment No. 13 removes the reference to advertising gaming from the definition of providing a game in the context of gambling. The amendment is necessary to ensure that not just licensees providing gaming activities can advertise gaming for the purpose of gambling and can be held liable and responsible for any breaches of the advertising obligations under Part 6.

Amendment No. 14 removes the reference to advertising a lottery from the definition of providing a lottery. The amendment is necessary to ensure that not just licensees providing an advertising lottery can be held liable and responsible for any breaches of the advertising obligation under Part 6.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 17, to delete lines 28 and 29 and substitute the following: “ “gaming machine” means—

(a) a machine manufactured or adapted for the purpose of allowing a person to participate, upon the making of a payment, in a gambling activity, and

(b) where the outcome of that gambling activity is determined either by the action of the machine or by manipulation of the machine by the person, or both;”.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 18, line 17, after “raffle” to insert “, a quiz featuring an element of chance”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 18, line 20, to delete “National Lottery Act 2013” and substitute “Act of 2013”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 19, line 1, to delete “section 18(2)” and substitute “sections 18(2) and 202(14)”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 19, line 11, to delete “ “provider of an application store service” ” and substitute “ “provider of an online application store service” ”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 8, 42, 70 to 72, inclusive, and 96 are related and may be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 19, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “ “regulated financial service provider” means an undertaking that is permitted to conduct activities as a regulated financial service provider within the meaning of section 2 of the Central Bank Act 1942;”.

Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment necessary to define and ensure financial providers used by licensees are either subject to regulation by the Central Bank here, by the ECB in the case of licensees located in the wider EU, or by similar financial regulatory authorities in EEA member states. The term “regulated financial service provider” was inserted into the Central Bank Act 1942 by the European Union Single Supervisory Mechanism regulations in 2014 and the Central Bank Reform Act 2010.

On amendment No. 42, at present, section 74 provides that where a person is operating without a licence or is offering unlicensed gambling activities or services in the State, the authority may order the blocking of receipt of payment of moneys to a bank on behalf of that person. The purpose of the amendment is to broaden the scope of this power by updating the section and inserting the term “regulated financial service provider” consistent with the Central Bank Act 1942. The effect of this amendment means that the authority will now be able to seek orders against any financial service providers that come under the remit of the Central Bank, the European Central Bank, similar regulatory bodies in the EEA or any other bank outside the State. Far closer to home, many gambling companies have their headquarters and banking facilities in the United Kingdom. These will not be subject to supervision by the Central Bank or the ECB, nor will they be part of the EEA.

I will move to amendments Nos. 70 to 72, inclusive. Section 130 provides that licensees are required to have segregated customer accounts for the purpose of holding customer-related funds. The key aim of the section is to act as a safeguard for customers' money to avoid the potential for inappropriate use of such money by a licensee and to ensure there is appropriate record-keeping in respect of customers' money. While these amendments are technical, their purpose is to protect persons participating in gambling. Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 delete and replace the reference to a bank in section 130(7) with the term "regulated financial service provider”, with the effect that a licensee will have to establish segregated customer accounts with financial service providers that come under the remit of the regulatory and oversight bodies I mentioned. Amendment No. 72 is a technical and consequential amendment to amendments Nos. 70 and 71. It replaces the reference to banks in section 131 with a reference to “regulated financial service providers” instead.

On amendment No. 96, section 211 provides that the authority may apply for temporary court orders to address the situation whereby a gambling licensee is, in the opinion of the authority, in breach of a relevant obligation or where there is a need to act quickly to protect either the public or client funds in a segregated customer account from serious consequences. The temporary court orders will be interim in nature and can be used in a responsive and protective manner for a restricted period until the authority takes further steps to address the matter concerned. These orders may include the blocking of financial payments to or from a licensee's account and measures to protect moneys lodged to a segregated customer account. Similar to the amendment to section 74, amendment No. 96 will broaden the scope of these orders by updating the subsection through inserting the term “regulated financial service provider” consistent with the Central Bank Act 1942. The effect of the amendment means the authority will now be able to seek orders against any financial service providers that come under the remit of the Central Bank, the European Central Bank, similar regulatory bodies in the EEA or any other bank outside the State.

With these amendments, the authority will be able to seek orders and take action against those banks and financial providers operating on behalf of unlicensed operators outside the State that are not subject to supervision here, in the EEA or the EU, where necessary, to protect our citizens who participate in gambling and those operating in a licensed and responsible manner within the State.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 21, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(6) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act applies to gambling activities carried on by, or on the premises of, a private members’ club in like manner as it applies to such activities carried on by, or on the premises of, any other natural or legal person or unincorporated body of persons.”.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which are in my name. There is an important history to amendment No. 9 and an important question about the entitlement of the Dáil and Seanad to know what precisely they are legislating for. For far too long, this question has been hidden in administrative omerta and legal obfuscation and the law as we understood it has been ignored and unenforced.

The issue I refer to is the status of private members' clubs. Under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, various venues not a stone's throw from this building have operated as casinos for decades under the pretext that they are immune from the law because they are private clubs open to members only, even though membership can be bought at the door. There was a substantial amendment to the 1956 Act in 2019 and, in the course of debate on the Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 2019, the question arose of its impact on the operation on those private members' clubs.

It has been stated by successive Ministers for justice that the 1956 Act does not apply to clubs. Sometimes the argument has been more narrowly made that the Act does not apply to bona fide private members' clubs. In reality, the clubs advertised around town are proprietary clubs, not members' clubs, and are run by their owners as commercial operations. The question is important because these venues offer casino-style games such as roulette and blackjack.

A casino game is defined in law as one where "by reason of the nature of the game, the chances of all the players, including the banker, are not equal". Promoting casino-style games is unlawful under section 4 of the 1956 Act. Until recently it was generally hard to know how or why the 1956 Act was interpreted as not applying to these venues. As far as I know, there is no judgment of a superior court on the question and the State has never appealed the case and sought such a judgment from a higher court.

As is pointed out in Regulating Gaming in Ireland, the report of the casino committee of 2006, the provision of casino-style games in these clubs should be a matter of concern, given it is entirely contrary to the intentions of the 1956 Act and there can be no regulation of this activity. If that Act is defective, no Minister has ever spelled out to the Dáil what the precise defect is or why it has never been remedied. We do not even know if the defect is thought to cover both members' clubs owned and run by members and proprietary clubs owned and run as commercial operations.

However, in the course of debate on the 2019 amendment Bill, matters were placed on a different footing. In the Select Committee on Justice and Equality on 10 July, in reply to an amendment seeking to insert a definition of "Private Members Club", the then Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, said the existence of such clubs arose on foot of a constitutional protection that members' clubs were not governed by the 1956 Act or by his Bill and that, thus, according to the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, there was no need to accept the amendment. The Minister of State declared there was constitutional protection for private members' clubs. On Report Stage of the Bill in the Dáil on 4 November, the Minister of State said:

I have made the point repeatedly that the operation of such clubs enjoys a constitutional protection, that of free association. Those clubs are not governed in the context of gaming activities by the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, by this Bill or any other enactment or law.

This position is supported by the advice I have received from the Office of the Attorney General. I went there to be sure and to get that advice.

On the Minister of State's understanding, we can legislate to abolish gambling entirely but if all of us have decided to form a club, under the Constitution we can go away and engage in gambling. This is an astonishing proposition. I have discussed it with lawyers and they are equally astonished. It leads to a bizarre, nonsensical and unacceptable conclusion. Are we meant to believe the Oireachtas can legislate against misuse of drugs, for example, but opium dens should be exempted from the law so long as they charge a membership fee at the door, or that clubs on St. Stephen's Green can constitutionally ignore the liquor licensing laws?

I believe this interpretation of the Constitution is not only unsustainable but downright foolish on its face. Its foolishness can be seen in the fact even the gambling industry does not accept it. The Gaming and Leisure Association of Ireland helpfully circulated to TDs an opinion commissioned from David Conlan Smyth SC. That opinion concludes there was no unconstitutional interference in the 2019 Bill with the rights of members of private clubs to associate with each other. The legislation instead proposed to limit, in the public interest, gaming activities in and of such clubs and, in the opinion of senior counsel, the legislation should be defended by the Government as "regulation and control in the public interest of the existence of the foregoing right", as referred to in Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution.

We have a situation where the Minister of State has interpreted gambling legislation as not applying to private members' clubs because of the constitutional rights of their members while the clubs have been legally advised and believe they cannot assert any such right. I do not know of any other area where we as TDs are asked to legislate on an understanding the laws we pass will not apply to a certain sector because of an assumed constitutional bar that is nowhere referenced in law and where the sector does not assert any such constitutional immunity.

At the very least, we should have sight of any advice on this question from the Office of the Attorney General. We cannot be asked to legislate blindfolded. As members of the Legislature, we are in an impossible situation. There is already legislation in force aimed at outlawing certain commercial activities. However, even though the Act does not explicitly exempt a certain sector, the law is not applied to that sector.

When the Dáil was asked to amend this law in 2019, we were told any law we passed would not apply to that sector on constitutional grounds but the sector disavows any such constitutional entitlement. We need to know if the Government still insists, in the context of this Bill and despite legal opinion from other quarters, that the constitutional recognition and protection afforded to private members' clubs exempts them from compliance with gambling legislation. If the proposition is untenable as a matter of constitutional law, which I believe it is, then we need to know where this crazy notion came from and how it has been in place so long and so profitably.

Amendment No. 10 excludes charities from the Act. Charities should be regulated by the Charities Regulator. They are not and cannot be considered to be commercial gambling and this Act is very much directed to commercial gambling. UK Gambling Commission research showed that only a small minority of people believe charity fundraising lotteries or draws are regarded as a form of gambling, rather than primarily ways of donating. Those who see them as gambling see them as the least harmful form of gambling. The Bill has exempted the national lottery so it seem consistent to allow the same logic to apply to charities.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendment No. 11. It proposes that the Act should not apply to gambling activities, including a game or lotto, carried on by or on behalf of any organisation that is a registered charitable organisation under the meaning of the Charities Act and:

that has a charitable or philanthropic purpose, which shall be construed in accordance with section 87(4), and is designated by the Authority [which will be Údarás Rialála Cearrbhachais na hÉireann] in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) Provided such activities are for the sole benefit of the organisation or organisations.

(3) The Minister may make regulations setting out requirements in relation to the operation of subsection (1)(b).”.

This amendment aims to address concerns of charitable organisations and sporting bodies about the impact the Act will have on their fundraising. It will give a role to the regulator in deciding what a relevant body is. It will close a loophole whereby a gambling company could team up with a charity to circumvent the Act by requiring such fundraising to be for their sole benefit and it gives the Minister a role in making regulations in respect of how it functions.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support amendment No. 11. We are trying to protect charities and sporting and community organisations so the Act does not negatively affect them, while excluding gambling companies or people looking to profit on the back of charitable events. There could be a situation where an event is being held and maybe 10% goes to the charity. That is being used as a backdoor around this legislation. The amendment stops companies abusing and getting on the shoulders of charities, sporting organisations and community groups.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a large number of charities and many of them are performing functions that really are public services. Many if not all of them rely on the ability to fundraise. Very essential services are being provided. It is important to get a balance in all of this. I would be generally supportive of the Bill but we must know exactly, but we cannot have unintended consequences such as ending up with reduced services, which are essentially public services, because of an inadequacy of funding if charities are precluded from fundraising due to legislative provisions. Putting safeguards in is utterly appropriate, but I have concerns that we will end up with very viable charities becoming non-viable. Those charities are delivering public services. I do not believe some of those charities should have to provide public services but they are. While that is the case, we must be very careful about this particular aspect.

Michael Lowry (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very concerned. We have to protect charities, voluntary organisations and sporting organisations. Numerous charities and such bodies have contacted me expressing their reluctance and concern about this aspect of the Bill. In general, I believe that everybody supports the principle behind the Bill. If we have reduced services because the sponsors of those services are unable to fundraise to support them, however, it will create a problem.

Several charities have told me that they are opposed to this, that they do not like it and that it is going to have massive repercussions for their organisations, but they do not want to say it publicly in case it would be misinterpreted as them being supportive of gambling. The Minister of State has to look at this. There has to be a balance and a reasonable solution has to be found. Either amendment No.9 or Deputy Murphy's amendment - one or the other - should be acceptable to the Government.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will now speak to this grouping of amendments.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On an unrelated issue, I assure Deputy Ó Ríordáin that he will have a proper answer to yesterday's question tomorrow, and if he does not then he can contact me.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Ó Ríordáin for tabling amendment No. 9, which raises a very important point about the future licensing and regulation of private members' clubs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that private members' clubs come within the scope of the Bill and that the authority would regulate such operations. I can confirm that such clubs will be included under the Bill, I will bring forward amendments to that effect when the Bill is being progressed in the Seanad.

At present, private members' clubs, where they provide gambling activities, are regulated under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Act 2021, as amended. It is my intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill in the Seanad in order to provide for detailed, transitional and safer provisions concerning multiple Acts and for consequential amendments to other enactments, as well as for the revocation of all necessary statutory instruments. These will include transitional measures around that particular Act. Operators of private members' clubs will come within the scope of the Bill and within the remit of the authority. There will be no loopholes or special treatment for private members' clubs. Like other operators, they will be required to apply for licences from the authority and will be subject to the regulatory measures provided in the Bill.

I fully agree with the import of the Deputy's amendment. However, I ask him to withdraw it. I am happy discuss the matter further with him, but we are going to introduce amendments to ensure that what he is seeking to do will be covered by the legislation. We are working with the Office of the Attorney General to get the wording right

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, and the rationale behind them, raise a number of extremely important matters that I am happy to address. The effect of these amendments would be to provide that the Bill would not apply to charities registered under the 2009 Act and that such charities would not be subject to regulation by the authority. As previously stated, the Government and I recognise and appreciate the hard work and the services provided by charities across the State. Their good works and contributions to society is immeasurable and incalculable. Every one of us and our families have benefited from their hard work in some way or other. I understand the concerns of those in the sector and those raised by the Deputies on their behalf. Stakeholder engagement is an important aspect of informing and developing new legislation. Hearing the views of all stakeholders in respect of legislative proposals that will affect them is a key aspect of a robust, transparent and democratic legislative process. In that context, I met with 14 individual organisations from the charity sector and with the Charities Institute Ireland last February to hear their views on the Bill. I have also received correspondence from more than 40 charities about the Bill. I am aware of the concerns. Furthermore, senior officials from my Department met with representatives from the charity sector in August. My officials have also met with representatives of other non-charitable, philanthropic organisations in March.

The Government is not equating the charity sector with commercial gambling operators. It is important to note that charities and other organisations are already subject to regulation under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 in circumstances where they operate and promote lotteries as part of their fundraising model. The Bill before the House is a direct continuation of the existing policy and the measures, albeit modernised, provided in the 1956 Act. I also accept that charities are regulated under Charities Act 2009. Not all charities rely on gambling activities as part their fundraising model. The charities that do provide gambling activities must remain properly regulated in that regard.

The exclusion of the charity sector from the provisions of the Bill would result in a removal of safeguards and protections with which the sector has complied for close to 70 years. In the case of gambling we must regulate the activity irrespective of who provides it. In order that there is no confusion, I assure Deputies that neither the Government nor I are equating the charity sector with bad actors or with being involved in criminality. Unfortunately, however, we all know there are rare but highly damaging examples where some persons abused the status of their organisation as charities for the purposes of self gain. This is a sad but thankfully rare occurrence. Many of us in this Chamber and in the Seanad will have had the unpleasant experience of sitting on various committees looking into how and why such situations happen, and how we can put safeguards in place to prevent them from happening again.

We are morally and legally obliged as legislators to ensure that somebody cannot operate and offer gambling activities under the guise of being a charity for the benefit of criminal or other non-charitable activities. It is with this in mind that I have placed such a strong emphasis on establishing the beneficial ownership and identifying key personnel who could be named as licensees under the Bill. It is important that charities and their activities, as well as regulated gambling, are also seen to be well regulated to ensure public confidence in them.

As stated, many of the provisions of the Bill are carried over from the 1956 Act, with which the sector is already compliant. However, the effect of the Deputies' amendments, alongside the repeal of the 1956 Act, would be to remove all regulation insofar as it relates to gambling in the sector. It would effectively result in a type of wild-west scenario whereby anyone could operate as a charity, without regulation and without limitation or accountability. As legislators, we are obliged to ensure proper controls are in place to protect the wonderful work carried out by the charities and to prevent those that would masquerade as genuine charities from damaging the entire sector. This is a hugely important factor. We would be remiss in our obligations if we did not do as I have outlined. I am aware that such consequences are not the Deputies' intention, but that would be the result of the amendments. It would mean the deregulation of an entire sector with regard to the operation and promotion of gambling activities, and a removal of safeguards and protections that the charity sector have complied with for over 70 years.

As mentioned earlier, I have had extensive engagement with the sector and I have listened to their concerns. I brought forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage to address some of those concerns. I have clarified that the prohibition on sponsorship events does not apply to the charitable and philanthropic licensees. I removed the maximum relevant payment limits where gambling activities are provided under a charitable and philanthropic licence. I understand the sector has concerns about the advertising watershed, which was the result of the unanimous recommendation of the cross-party Joint Committee on Justice in its pre-legislative scrutiny report. This watershed was recommended to protect children from the widespread proliferation of gambling advertising. It does not mean that charitable and philanthropic licensees will be forbidden from advertising before the watershed. The watershed will not hinder or prevent them from advertising to raise awareness of their activities or to fundraise. They can still advertise, seek donations, ask for support and promote their fund raising activities in a general manner. The watershed only applies to advertising of gambling activities.

Similarly, the Bill does not include a blanket prohibition on branded merchandise for licensees. A charitable and philanthropic licensee can still have its fund raising campaigns and can still seek donations and give out branded merchandise. The prohibition only applies where the merchandise advertises a gambling activity or includes that licensee's trademark, emblem, marketing image or logo by reference to which a relevant gambling activity is being marketed or provided, and where charities themselves state that people do not associate them with gambling. The wording in 142(6) reflects that assertion.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 21, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“Non-application of Act

3. This Act does not apply to gambling activities carried on, by or on behalf of an organisation that is a registered charitable organisation under the Charities Act 2009.”.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 21, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“Non-application of Act

3. (1) This Act does not apply to gambling activities carried on, by or on behalf of any organisation— (a) that is a registered charitable organisation under the Charities Act 2009, and

(b) that has a charitable or philanthropic purpose, which shall be construed in accordance with section 87(4), and is designated by the Authority in accordance with subsection (2). (2) Provided such activities are for the sole benefit of the organisation or organisations.

(3) The Minister may make regulations setting out requirements in relation to the operation of subsection (1)(b).”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 21, to delete lines 36 to 38, and in page 22, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:

“(a) acting, or offering to act, as a bookmaker,

(b) acting, or offering to act, as a remote betting intermediary,

(c) offering to take a bet, or

(d) causing another person to do any of the activities referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 22, lines 7 to 12, to delete all words from and including “A reference” in line 7 down to and including line 12 and substitute the following:

“A reference in this Act to a person providing a game shall be taken to be a reference to the person-

(a) selling or offering to sell a game, or

(b) causing another person to sell or offer to sell a game.”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 22, lines 14 to 20, to delete all words from and including “A reference” in line 14 down to and including line 20 and substitute the following:

“A reference in this Act to a person providing a lottery shall be taken to be a reference to the person- (a) selling or offering to sell a product or activity referred to in the definition, in section 2(1), of “lottery”, or

(b) causing another person to do any of the activities referred to in paragraph (a).”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 23, line 22, after "1956" to insert, "other than section 36".

I am used to clearing rooms when I start talking. The practice in this country for hundreds of years has been that gambling debts are not enforceable in a court of law. This means that a bookie cannot force a person to pay a gambling debt, nor can a person force a bookie to pay out on a bet. It acknowledges that gambling is not just a normal financial transaction. The Government has supplied absolutely no reason to change this. There is absolutely no evidence in favour of it. We believe this is the financialisation and normalisation of gambling. That is why we have tabled amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, this was ahead of schedule so I missed some of the earlier contributions, which went very swiftly. Although it is in the Register of Member's Interests, I want to declare that I am a director of a not-for-profit music festival in Donegal. Everyone is welcome to come on 12 July. This music festival, being not for profit, also operates a philanthropic, lottery licence. I just wanted to clarify this.

This amendment deals with section 9 which repeals what would be, with the passage of this legislation, outdated legislation. However, what the Minister of State is bringing forward here is going to destroy the fundraising abilities of many local organisations in my community. The Minister of State is shaking his head but I will give examples of what I mean. The North West Hospice has a lottery on Ocean FM, a local broadcaster. The prize fund is just €20,000. Under this legislation, the lottery will be banned from being broadcast on the radio station. Local GAA clubs that raffle a car to help the development of their pitches will not be allowed to advertise the product on social media except to those who like their Facebook page. It means it is not possible anymore. If we look on Facebook we see community groups raffling houses to try to gather funding for local organisations. With this legislation, they will not be allowed to do so. Yes, they can advertise, including on social media, but the only people they can advertise to are the people who like their page. It makes no sense. That is why the Government is going to destroy this.

The problem with this legislation is that while we are revoking other legislation, a horse and cart is already being driven through the existing legislation, and the legislation before us does not deal with it. For example, "gaming" and "lottery" are defined as "an activity engaged in by a person on the payment of money by the person". Does the Minister of State understand that there are companies which have prize funds of half a million euro and more? These are major companies that do not fall under the existing legislation that is being repealed. Why? It is because they do two things. The first is that they offer free entry. That does not fit the definition of "gaming" and "lottery" in the legislation because no payment was made with the offer of free entry. Most people do not take the free entry, they just pay the €10, €20 or in some cases, €100 for the ticket online. The second thing they do is ask a question. For example, this might be something like how many weeks there are in the year what comes after Saturday. Therefore, it moves out of a lottery into a skill-based game. Those two provisions allow for numerous companies to target their advertisements at people right across the State. This legislation does nothing for them. We are repealing old, outdated legislation because that allowed them to drive a horse and cart through the legislation but this legislation does the same. I could name these numerous companies in the Dáil record but I will not do so. They will continue to be operational because of the definitions in this legislation. However, if my local GAA club wants to do a car draw, it will be prevented from advertising that to the community in which it operates, if those individuals are not already subscribed to the club's Facebook page. That is just nonsense. If the club decides to boost the posts to the community or the parish in which it operates, it will be an offence. That is what this legislation does. The Minister of State has brought forward amendments that go some of the way but the amendments only go for prize winnings that are less than €10,000. This means that draws with prizes of cars or houses will not be possible. That is terrible.

Let us consider annual draws. How the hell are the FAI or the GAA going to have an annual draw? Such a draw is not possible under this legislation. I can go through that in detail with the Minister of State. All of these good organisations that do so much valuable stuff in our community have a timeframe. People involved in the scouts know that coming up to September they will have their draw. The FAI has it at a different time. The GAA has its national draw. Of course they will be able to get a one-off lottery licence, but what are the rules that have been set down in this legislation? First of all, the lottery has to applied for 60 days before any tickets can be sold. The tickets can then be sold, let us say for only a month. After that, the licence lasts for at least two months. Then and only then, can a new licence be applied for, when 12 months expires after that point. This means that organisations are into a period of, not 12 months, but more like 17 or 18 months. It means that every year the date will be different for organisations, groups and franchises across the State that are used to having an annual draw in February, June or July. It is bonkers.

This legislation was drafted, and rightly so, and I and my party support it, to regulate gambling, but fundraising has been thrown into the middle of it. Every single Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Member came and voted to apply many of these measures that we apply to Paddy Power and Betfair to our local communities that are trying to raise funds. Most people who put their hand into their pocket and give money to the Irish Cancer Society, the FAI or the GAA for the chance of winning a car or whatever do not see it as gambling. They see it as supporting an organisation which is doing so much good in their community. That is why I am saying that we are revoking old, outdated legislation but what the Minister of State is doing here is seriously problematic because it will crush the fundraising ability of local organisations.

I do not believe that is the Minister of State's intention but his intention does not matter because this is what the law is going to state. The Government must deal with this. I suggest that the Bill goes back to Committee Stage. We are on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil but the legislation should go back to Committee Stage so that this issue can be dealt with. I have been lobbied by many different groups. They will look at this legislation and see that the Government put in a provision that makes political parties exempt. We can advertise on social media. We can hold draws for cars and houses. We do not have to just advertise to people who like our Facebook page but can advertise as much as we want. We can do all of that. Political parties are exempt from these regulations.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you Deputy.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the problem with what the Minister of State is bringing before the House today. The Government really needs to have a rethink here. This is seriously problematic legislation for those cohorts. I completely and utterly welcome the rest of it. We need strict regulation because problem gambling is an issue, as is gambling addiction. The gambling fund and authority are very good and very worthy and are deserving of our support. The problem here is in relation to community groups, charities, philanthropic bodies, and sports organisations which are going to be seriously impacted if this legislation gets through.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is hard to follow Deputy Doherty but having listened to him, I agree that this provision is mind boggling. I could name a couple of hundred local clubs that run lotteries, whether for rugby or soccer, as well as community groups. We even raise funds for the St. Patrick's Day parade. For me, the Government is shutting down the heartbeat of any community. Sport, in particular, is vital for the mental health and well-being of people in the community. It feels like the Government is threatening the only possibility some people have of maintaining their sporting organisations and giving back to their communities. Clubs in my own town and all over my constituency, including Cobh Ramblers, Cobh Wanderers, Midleton RFC and the soccer clubs in Youghal, have weekly fundraisers and a lot of them are what would be called lotteries. I cannot stand over this legislation. I cannot go back to them and say "Sorry, there was a blip, we missed something" and tell them that they will have to find alternative ways to raise funds to make up for the shortfall in funding.

I understand that the Bill is important in the context of gambling addiction but I agree with Deputy Doherty that the legislation should be recommitted and done properly. We should try not to pit one against the other and we should certainly not leave any loopholes for those who can afford it and will get away with it. It is the small little soccer, rugby or rowing clubs in our communities that will be struggling to keep going. I ask the Minister of State to rethink it.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also appeal to the Minister of State not to proceed with this because it will have major implications for the organisations referred to by others. Gambling is a serious problem and is something that needs to be addressed. I absolutely agree with that, 100%. There is no argument whatsoever in relation to that. I want to give the Minister of State a couple of examples of organisations that will be affected. St. Francis Hospice in Dublin 15 holds a car draw every year from which it raises a substantial amount of money. Will that be affected? It seems that it will be. Very recently Castleknock GAA club had a huge fundraiser. There was €200,000 or €250,000 in prize money and tickets were €100. The only way that the club could sell those tickets was through Facebook. I would say there is nobody on Facebook who did not see the advertisements. The club managed to pull in GAA stars, RTÉ stars and people from all over Ireland and from all walks of life to do a 20-second or 30-second advertisement for Castleknock GAA club. It was done for one simple reason: to benefit the kids in the area and give them better sports facilities. This is way too serious for any chances to be taken with it. As I said, we definitely need gambling legislation and we need to seriously crack down on gambling addiction in this State but this is too serious to proceed. The implications of this Bill will be massive for ordinary community groups, sports clubs and so on that will be really limited in how they can raise funds.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are into the realm of unintended consequences here, as other speakers have pointed out. In my own GAA club in Waterford we held a fundraiser last year. Tickets were €100 and the prize was a house in Dungarvan. The draw raised €600,000 and that money is going exclusively into underage sports development. I can guarantee that the people who were buying the €100 tickets for a house were not really gambling. They knew what they were doing; they were giving money to their club and if they were lucky, they might get something. They were not doing it because they wanted to gamble. The Bill has strayed here and this needs to be looked at again. So many organisations and individual GAA clubs use lotto-type arrangements and people buy tickets for good reasons. That is not the kind of gambling we are trying to address.

I would also point to something that is not in the legislation, which is a gambling block. I brought this up with the former Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, eight or ten weeks ago. Under a measure that was agreed in this House in principle over two years ago, the banks would introduce a gambling block on credit and debit cards for problem gamblers and those recovering from gambling addiction. The idea was that cards would be blocked from accessing any gambling site, but it has not moved forward at all. That is a significant issue. It should be in this legislation. We have waited long enough for it and it is something that is being done very successfully in the UK. It can be done easily here too. The banks have agreed to do it and yet it has not progressed. I urge the Minister of State to look again at the issues of fundraising by community, philanthropic and social groups and the introduction of a credit and debit card gambling block for problem gamblers in this legislation.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the first things I learned when I became a TD is that when it comes to legislation and amendments, there is the possibility of unintended consequences. The longer one is here, the more experience one gets and one learns that a Bill or an amendment, in and of itself, might be introduced for the right reasons but it can have ramifications or consequences that are way beyond whatever it set out to do.

I am a member of St. Vincent's GAA club. The Cork County Board runs a fabulous draw that clubs buy into, at €100 per ticket. That draw has raised €8 million over the last four years in profits for the clubs. Mine is an average-sized club that has intermediate football and junior hurling teams. There would not be huge sales in the area I am from but the €4,000 or €5,000 that we make, which might be small in comparison to other clubs, is a huge amount of money for us. Every month, the first prize in the draw is €20,000 but the first prize in the December draw is €100,000. In other years, there were cars and lots of different prizes. Every GAA club in Cork county, and every club in every other county, depends on their county board draw. We heard Deputies Buckley and Donnelly talking about charities raffling cars. I remember my own club raffling a car a few years ago to raise money to provide a gym for the young players. At the time we did not have the resources and the car draw brought in €26,000 which helped us to fit out a gym. I have often bought tickets from charities that are trying to raise money but as someone said earlier, a lot of these charities, sporting organisations and community groups are fundraising because the Exchequer is not providing funding. A lot of charities and groups like the Irish Cancer Society and Marymount Hospice in Cork run different types of events all of the time. I could be wrong but there seems to be an issue with this legislation's provisions in relation to advertising and promoting such events.

If they cannot go outside their Facebook followers or that kind of base, how are they ever going to raise the money they need for their charities or organisations? I come from an average sized club but we cannot afford to lose the Cork county board draw or the ability to run major fundraising events, whether it is a draw for a house, a car or a really substantial event. The only way we could make a success of that is if we go to the wider audience and community and the bigger GAA family around Cork and nationally because our membership is limited. That is the one great thing about the association and probably all sports. We have run events below and we have had people buying tickets in Dublin and Galway. That is not gambling; that is supporting the GAA or supporting charities. The Minister needs to look at this again. We support the Bill. We support the need for a regulator and an authority and we also support the protection of people who are at risk from harmful gambling. I deal with these people all the time. I know people who gamble and they do not consider buying a ticket for a house or car for a charity or a GAA club or any sporting or community organisation gambling. They consider that supporting their community. On how we match this up, the Minister has to do it. He has to find a way to protect vulnerable people but, at the same time, protect charities and sporting and community organisations.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The need for this Bill is very clear. We want to see regulation. Over the past year or so, we have had many meetings with families whose lives have been affected by gambling, bingo halls and all sorts of stakeholders. The scale and reach of gambling companies is driving the vast majority of gambling home and it needs to be tackled. There are amendments coming in respect of credit card gambling, putting people with lived experience of gambling on the board of the regulator and tightened risk assessments. I want to take the Minister up on something he said earlier, which is that it would be like the Wild West for charities. Charities are already very well regulated in other ways and they would not be pleased with what the Minister is after saying.

There is great fear coming incrementally. I had a call only this afternoon from a GAA figure in County Kerry who was worried about whether the local clubs in the area would still be able to advertise a lotto draw if it went over €10,000. It is only at that level that more and more people start buying into it apart from the regular members. Will they be deprived of people signing up for that particular draw? There are other concerns as well under section 140 about the ads and all the conditions that will have to be put on them for local cancer groups, GAA and soccer clubs. Is the annual draw that is often done by cancer charities in danger due to the onerous and maybe unnecessary calendar with 60 days applying for 12 months and all that? Only today people rang me with concerns about section 170 and withdrawing cash from a financial account and whether there will be a risk that people will not be able to pay for food at the races. That was the latest concern. The concerns about this Bill are spreading and filtering into the community. Slowly but surely, people are coming to us with their concerns over what is happening with this Bill and those concerns are increasing rather than decreasing.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everyone around the country is concerned about betting and gambling, especially online gambling. Youngsters are betting online and there has to be some curbing of that. We have to legislate for that. There have to be some limits whereby people can only bet so much online. That has to be introduced. There is no call for tampering with the fundraising of clubs, charities, sports clubs, GAA clubs. What is being done here is volunteers are fundraising to try to keep their sporting groups going such as football clubs or whatever, or hurling clubs like Kilgarvan. It brings communities together when they are fundraising for a purpose. From all different creeds of religions and political beliefs, people come together to fundraise for their local club. We should not tamper with that. We should make sure that whatever Bill we bring forward here, we do not tamper with those vital things. We all know that GAA clubs are struggling, especially rural clubs in small places with small populations. It is one way of retaining their identity. It is sad to see places like Sneem and Caherdaniel. Sneem had a team of its own with John Egan but then the population went down and they had to join with Caherdaniel. They are even struggling now and will probably have to get some other club to join with them. We need to support these entities so that they retain their identity. It is very important that we do so and that we do not tamper with them with this Bill.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As other speakers have said, we all appreciate the importance of this Bill as regards gambling, especially the online part of it. There is not a TD in this Chamber who has not been approached by some charity, GAA club or school raising money. It is unbelievable that this is being brought in when there is so much uncertainty out there. We are asking for it to be referred back to the committee to get all these concerns out of the way. I could just think of my own town. Two of the big projects I was involved in raising money for myself were the community playground and the resource centre. If this Bill comes in, money could not be raised to build these centres and so on. At the minute in Cashel we have schools raising money because they are underfunded by Government. What happens schools if this comes in and they cannot raise that kind of money? There are also uncertainty if there is a limit on how much can be spent on a draw or how much can be collected. The fire brigade in Cashel has been brilliant down through the years. We helped them out with collecting money for different charities. Are the likes of the fire brigades that raise money every year exempt or are they going to be caught and unable to do that kind of charity work? It just needs to be rethought. That is coming across from all Deputies. It is the lifeblood of most community groups in all our towns that they can do their big draw and bring in big money for the playgrounds and so on. GAA clubs, rugby clubs and soccer clubs are all depending solely most of the time on money raised in our communities like that. This needs to go back to the committee to be rethought and to take away the uncertainty that is being expressed by everyone this evening about what can be done. We all accept there is a problem with gambling, especially online, and there is no issue with that. The issues are with the other part of the Bill and we need that clarified before any more is done.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is exceptionally frustrating. We debated this very issue about 45 minutes ago. I gave answers on all of these questions and clearly the Deputies were not here. They turned up late, on Deputy Ó Ríordáin’s amendment, and hijacked that because they could not turn up on time to discuss it when we discussed it. They clearly were not listening in their offices either. Had they been listening they would have heard answers to most of the questions they have just raised. This is a complete waste of Dáil time, making a Minister of State repeat everything because they could not be bothered to turn up when we were discussing this very issue.

What we are talking about now, again, is gambling advertising, not stopping charities from raising funds, but advertising gambling between the hours of 5.30 a.m. and 9 p.m. The genesis of this is the unanimous recommendation of the justice committee, including the Sinn Féin Deputies. Sinn Féin supported this. In fact they said they backed the report but now they come in here and say they support regulation of gambling but want exemptions for the charity sector, the sporting sector, bingo, schools and radio. There were other letters about the horse racing industry. In other words, Sinn Féin wants a regulation, but wants to exempt everyone. Obviously it has done the polling and realises, since the proposal in the justice committee, that it can make hay out of this and will do another U-turn by exempting almost everybody. It does not want to regulate gambling. It wants to regulate the commercial gambling industry. That is different from what we are doing. We treat this as a public health crisis. Those Deputies listening in their constituencies will know there is a crisis with gambling addiction. The ESRI report from last Christmas shows that it is ten times worse than what we believed to be the worst-case scenario. However, Sinn Féin wants exemptions for charities, sports, schools, radio, bingo and horse racing, about which they came to me, not here tonight, but elsewhere. It does not want anything covered. It is not treating this in the same way as alcohol or tobacco or any other high-risk activity. It just wants to regulate the financial industry. That is fine, but it should be honest and say that.

Had Deputy Doherty been here earlier, he would know that quizzes are covered in this. We specifically mentioned it earlier but he was not listening. Let us look at Sinn Féin’s amendment. It amendment proposes that charities be completely exempt from the legislation. Charities have been regulated under gambling legislation for 70 years but Sinn Féin wants a complete exemption, as well as an exemption from child protection measures, anti-money laundering measures and terrorist financing measures, so exemption from all oversight. That is what Sinn Féin’s proposal does. It wants to be able to walk out of here tonight, set up a charity and have it put a house up for raffle with no regulation over it whatsoever. It wants to be able to sell as many tickets as it wants and have no oversight of its charity or to raffle a house with no terrorist financing measures, anti-money laundering measures or child protection measures. It is an interesting proposal from Sinn Féin.

What we are doing here is tackling a crisis. We are regulating an activity of gambling just as we do with alcohol, tobacco or road traffic. What Sinn Féin wants to do, to use its own language, is drive a horse and four through it. Deputy Pa Daly made the most incisive comment tonight in regard to the €10,000 exemption for local clubs. Let us be clear, local clubs and charities have an exemption up to €10,000 on the advertising side. They will be regulated everywhere else but most of those clubs with such lotteries do not actually pay for any advertising. It is just to protect those clubs when a member might put a message on Facebook, for example, asking people not to forget to buy a lottery ticket. I am a member of plenty of clubs. This is being done to protect them. Most of them do not pay for advertising. They use social media. Deputy Pa Daly said it is only when the pot exceeds €10,000 that people start to get attracted to it. That is the very essence of gambling. When people see a big prize pot they cannot resist backing money. That is not supporting your club.

It is seeing a big number online, not being able to resist and needing to buy a ticket to see whether you can win the money. Gambling addiction is not about money; it is about the high, and when you see that bigger figure, you go after it because it talks to your self-worth. Before Deputy Doherty keeps coming out with these comments, I recommend he talk to Professor Colin O'Gara, the specialist in this area, because I can guarantee he would not agree with the Deputy's proposals.

There is a real risk to the charity sector. The charity sector does amazing work throughout this country, and while there have been bad eggs in the past, imagine the sector had no regulation whatsoever, whereby any actor could set up a charity and do what I have outlined, such as raffling that €250,000 house, with nobody able to look behind the raffle to see whether are anti-terrorism financing, child protection or anti-money laundering measures. Nobody would be able to do anything because it would be exempt from the gambling regulations. That is an extraordinary proposal.

We have protected the charity, sporting and other organisations in the Bill. The system for them to get licences is much more straightforward. The sector needs to be protected and that protection is done by having fair regulation. The gambling element is not covered in the charities sector and, as I said, draws are clearly not protected.

To go back to the initial point, this provision was proposed by the justice committee, including Sinn Féin's own TDs, and it is about an advertisement ban. This is good regulation. I am happy to listen to Deputies' sensible proposals. Deputy Ó Ríordáin has made several sensible ones, but this is just bellicose bluster and Deputy Doherty has misread the situation here. We are going to protect those sports clubs, but we are not going to have a massive, unregulated gambling sector in this country anymore because we have all seen the consequences of the destruction of individuals, families and communities. Believe me, it is getting worse by the year, and the ESRI has shown that.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From the Minister of State's contribution, he clearly does not want to try to reach agreement on how to fix this. I thought I was being fair enough with my comments because I think we can fix this, and I said I did not believe it was his intention, but maybe I have a different view of it now. I have told him there are companies driving a coach and horses through this already. I know schools are included; it is called the "gaming definition". How has the Government defined "gaming"? It is defined, on page 17, as "where a participant in the game may, having made a payment, win a prize of money".

Does the Minister of State want me to list 20 companies, which I could do now, raffling houses in Ibiza and similar places and cars worth €100,000 that are operating in this jurisdiction because they offer a free entry? The Government's definition, therefore, does not capture them. People do not take the free-entry route, but because of that the companies are able to operate, and the Minister of State did not respond to that point. Is it his case that every GAA club that is raffling a car should never be able to do it ever again?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not in the legislation. The Deputy knows that.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hang on a second-----

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is talking about advertising.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hold on a second. If the Government wants to support the sector, clubs will not be able to do that unless they advertise their car. That is just a fact. A GAA club or a community development association that is raffling a house will not be able to do that unless it is able to advertise, but companies such as McKinney Motors - I could name numerous ones - will be able to continue to raffle those houses because they have these types of exemptions. That is a problem. Does the Minister of State want to fix the legislation or not? He talks about backing charities. The North West Hospice Charity provides 100% support to people with palliative care. Its prize fund is €19,000 at the moment and it is being run by Ocean FM. That charity will be banned from running such a competition. That is a fact.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy. The time is up.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we want to fix this or not? Fianna Fáil's legislation is going to crucify these groups and charities.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What the Minister of State said was very disappointing. As I and everyone else said here, we thought this debate would be constructive. We worked with the Government and said how important the legislation is. I made a point about unintended consequences. A Minister can make a mistake and the Department can do so just as easily, just as I could, but we tease things out and discuss them here. This is the forum for that and we try to come up with solutions. The Minister of State said Sinn Féin wants to exempt everyone. My club and the other GAA clubs in Cork will not be able to run their clubs next year. Maybe some clubs will be able to if they have millionaires or big benefactors as members. They will be able to do so but the ordinary junior and intermediate clubs that have limited membership will not be able to. Where is the money to run those clubs? If the Minister of State is saying they will not be able to advertise or that the Cork county board draw, which offers €100,000 for the first prize in December and €20,000 every month, can no longer advertise outside the people who elect it-----

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was Sinn Féin's proposal-----

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt the Minister of State. I know people who have lost their lives because of gambling. I know people who have lost their families and their homes. That is the stuff on which we support the Government and we have come to the Chamber to back it. They did not lose their lives or their homes by buying a ticket to a GAA draw. They lost them on slot machines or in betting offices. I am not sure when the Minister of State was last in a betting office. They are like casinos. I invite people to go in and look at them. They are pulling every trick in the book to get every penny out of people.

I will tell the Minister of State what I think of his comments. I have legislation before the House that would ban the use of credit cards in gambling. Why has the Government not included that provision in this Bill? Why is it allowing people to gamble with money they do not have?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in the Bill. Read the legislation.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, time is up.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I brought froward that Bill and the Minister of State is accusing us-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a time limit.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make only one point, relating to the lotteries of GAA clubs. It is preposterous to say that, at odds of about 36,000 to one, all the gamblers with addiction problems start flocking in-----

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what you said.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is deliberately misconstruing and misinterpreting what I said in that regard. It is obvious that within a community, if there is a higher prize, people will come together and spend their €2 or get three tickets for €5 to enter that lottery, but it is preposterous to say it is people with a gambling addiction who buy in to that.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too will support the amendment. The Minister of State will be killing small clubs. Small clubs are the backbone of the community, whether they be GAA clubs, as they mainly are down the country, soccer clubs or any other type of club, organisation or community group. The lottery is a big thing, with a split-the-bucket or whatever. They are in every parish and they are very well supported. The Minister of State is saying they will not be able to be advertised or that they are the cause of some people starting to gamble. It is online gambling he should be dealing with. It ill behoves the Government. It is stopping so much living and fun in our communities. The Government has become a real killjoy and it will be stopping the cat chasing the mouse next. That is the way it is going on, with Big Brother coming in here and encroaching on everything, even activities that are so good for communities, not the big, highfalutin prizes where huge sponsorships and huge money is involved. This is ordinary people and it is of the people, by the people, for the people, developing clubs and facilities in their area in order that we can have players.

I just brought a group of young men to the House from my own club in Newcastle. They are from Cork, Clonmel and various other clubs. We had a bit of banter earlier about clubs going bad and struggling. Our club, Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Caisleán Nua, is only a bit of a club because two thirds of our parish is in Contae Phort Láirge, County Waterford. Clubs are struggling.

The Government would not listen to the racing industry either when it wanted to make reasonable amendments. I do not know what has got into it. It will not deal with the issues it should deal with, and then it tries to kill small clubs and communities in this way.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the Minister of State's frustration and I acknowledge that the Bill is on Report Stage, but I think he has conflated some of the issues and it is only right that he should reflect on them and maybe look to change them. A serious problem has been highlighted to him. As for problem gambling, as others and I have spoken about, fundraising for clubs is not where that is occurring. That has been highlighted and the Minister of State must recognise it.

He wants to solve one problem, but let us not create another.

As Deputy Gould said, the Minister of State needs to consider a gambling block. He needs to consider the companies whose domains are hosted outside the EU and whose online gambling activities will not be affected regardless of what he does with this legislation. He should at least introduce a gambling block with the banks.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make two brief points. Gambling from outside the jurisdiction that is pumped into Ireland is clearly covered in this legislation. We will get to that later.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where?

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How will the Government control ISPs that are outside the EU?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under section 74.

There is another point I did not get a chance to discuss earlier. There were complaints about the timelines in respect of one-off lotteries. That is the existing law under the 1956 Act. It is just being carried over. There is a big hullabaloo over the timelines, but that is the law that exists at the moment.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And it is outdated.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When will the Minister of State fix it?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputies want total exemptions for everything.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. If it is a problem, the Deputy is the Minister of State. Why has he not fixed it?

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government is creating a law that people are going to break.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. It has been broken already.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are seven-year penalties in the legislation.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are the Minister of State.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who will enforce it?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, please. Deputy Ó Ríordáin proposed amendment No. 15.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not get a chance to address the Deputy's proposal.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has 50 seconds left.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The frustrating thing is-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabh mo leithscéal, but the Minister of State will finish his time.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, after half an hour, I am delighted to hear what he has to say about my actual proposal.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will apologise to the Deputy for the second day in a row, as I did not address his proposal, what with everything else that was happening and how the debate was hijacked.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not take it personally.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy’s amendment seeks to address an important matter and raises interesting concerns around gambling. It would repeal the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, except for section 36. If my interpretation is correct, the good intention behind the Deputy’s amendment is to protect people who are participating in gambling from being pursued by a bookmaker, casino or other similar operator for a gambling debt. This issue is addressed in sections 9(2), 9(3) and 157 of the Bill. However, I am continuing to review this matter and I am happy to continue engaging with the Deputy, so I ask him to withdraw his amendment. I may end up going with the Deputy’s amendment, just not right now. This is a technical area and I wish to continue considering it.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to stifle the debate, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not present for the past little while, but there is a practice whereby we speak to the amendment. I tabled this amendment in good faith and waited for the Minister of State to address it in good faith, yet the debate went elsewhere about other issues, albeit valid ones. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 23, to delete lines 25 to 31.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 20 are related and will be discussed together.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 25, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(4) In appointing the members of the Authority, the Minister shall have regard to the objective of there being no fewer than 1 member with lived personal experience of harmful gambling behaviours.

(5) In appointing the members of the Authority, the Minister shall have regard to the importance of an independent Authority and attempt to ensure that no more than 2 members have recent (within the past 5 years) paid employment with any licence holder or potential licence holder.”.

The proposed subsection (4) reflects our desire for those in recovery to have a voice on the authority and ties into a commitment that was given in our all-island recovery charter. The reasons for the proposed subsection (5) are obvious.

I hope the Minister of State will agree to our amendment No. 18, which reads: "participating in the revision of the money laundering or terrorist financing risk assessment as it relates to gambling biennially in collaboration with the Anti-Money Laundering Steering Committee, liaising with An Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners". I believe this provision was included in the heads of the Bill before being omitted.

In amendment No. 20, we are asking that an annual report be produced. We are concerned that there is a level of outsourcing of agency responsibilities. Given the difficulties that may arise in that regard, we propose that the requirement to produce an annual report be included in the Bill. I hope the Minister of State will consider this amendment.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We discussed these matters at the justice committee and the Minister of State referred earlier to protecting people, harmful gambling and people at risk. We believe that at least one member of the authority should have the lived experience and personal knowledge of what it is like to go through the throes of addiction so that, when the authority meets, there is a voice in the room that can speak for those who are the most vulnerable and most affected. We can work together on this issue. I am not sure why it has not been taken on board. It was stated at the meeting that there might not be a person with – I cannot remember the exact phraseology – the necessary education or experience. I would argue that, if someone has been in the throes of gambling addiction or severe gambling harm, come out the other side and is in recovery, that person’s voice and experience need to be included in any discussion by the gambling regulatory authority.

The opposite side of the coin is found in the second part of amendment No. 17, which reads: “no more than 2 members have recent (within the past 5 years) paid employment with any licence holder or potential licence holder.” We are trying to ensure that the authority is not filled up with lads form the industry and that they cannot influence the authority in a way that is not balanced or fair.

These are important issues. The makeup of the authority is crucial. We do not want the authority being influenced unduly by the industry. We want to work with the industry, as will the regulator, but we also want to help the people whom the Minister of State mentioned in his previous contribution and to address the major problem Ireland has with gambling addiction. If the Minister of State really is concerned, he will take this amendment on board.

Regarding amendment No. 20, we have concerns about outsourcing, be it of inspections or of research. Why would the gambling authority not have the in-house expertise and resources to do the work it needs to do? If those are to be outsourced, then an annual report needs to be produced so that this activity can be scrutinised. We do not want to see such activity being pushed out of the way. We believe that the regulator should have the resources to do this work in house. We know we will be able to trust that work and that it will be independent and transparent.

We are giving the Minister of State positive and constructive solutions. He might have been annoyed a while ago, but surely he can recognise that we are trying to be constructive on this Bill. I hope so, anyway.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support amendment No. 17, which is reasonable and makes sense. That at least one member of the authority should have lived experience of harmful gambling behaviour is important and may be a suggestion that should be taken on board. I would like to hear why that will not be the case. The gambling regulatory authority will be meant to prevent the harm that gambling can do, so there needs to be personal experience on the board to ensure that relevant information is applied at all times to the decisions that are being made.

That is vitally important.

The second part of the amendment, which provides that no more than two people should be from the industry, is important too because there is a danger that over time, this agency would become a body of and one and the same as the gambling industry. That is something we do not want to happen and the Legislature would not want that to happen as well. These measures should form the protection that is needed for that board to make sure that it can achieve its work and achieve the common good for everybody as well.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I strongly support these amendments regarding the lived experience and to make sure the authority does not become captured by those in the industry. The industry is broad because we are not only dealing with the commercial, as it goes far beyond that.

This goes to the heart of Sinn Féin's approach to this issue. There is a major problem with gambling in this State and the availability of smartphones and apps has increased that. I say that as somebody who is involved in a company that has a lottery licence, as do many groups and charities as well, but there is a difference.

This is the first amendment on Report Stage when we are talking about the authority. I reiterate the point that there is a lot in this Bill that is really good because the current legislation - I do not have it in front of me - dates back, I think, to 1964 or 1957. It is an outdated lottery. If one looks at the legislation that used to be there, for instance, the limits used to be 1 pence and so on. It is unbelievable that it was so outdated.

This is the time not to repeat the mistakes of the past but to get it fixed now. The Minister of State will not want to be the Minister where people have found ways around this. Whatever our views about local sport organisations, charities, cancer groups, etc., being able to fund-raise, there is another element that has found ways around our gambling laws because they are so outdated. For example, the Minister of State mentioned section 74 to me. It is a good and important provision of the Bill, which will allow for the authority to seek a court order to force an organisation like Facebook or a website provider or whatever to close down a gambling activity if it is not regulated or not licensed here, but the provision states "the Authority has reasonable grounds for believing that a person ... is providing a gambling activity in contravention of Chapter 1". Therefore, the first question we have is, what is "a gambling activity"? A gambling activity is defined on page 16 of the Bill as "providing a betting activity, a game or a lottery", which is fair enough. That is fine but now we have to go to what is "a game" or "a lottery". Most of these are skills-based and, therefore, it is a game. A game is defined as being "of skill or chance, or partly of skill and partly of chance, and ... where a participant in the game may, having made a payment, win a prize". That is the problem. I want absolute clarity and I am sure the Minister of State wants absolute clarity that because they do not offer free entries, which is what they do at present, they are able to say that the authority can seek an order but the company concerned is not providing a gambling activity because "gambling activity" is defined as "a game or a lottery" and the Minister of State has defined a game as where payment is required. I cite as an example, and I will not name any others, a website which is all in euro. It is outside the jurisdiction but it is all euro prizes. The top prize is a €500,000 prize pot. The Minister of State could enter that one now. The Minister of State could go for a BMW 320 M Sport or he could get €2,000 cash. That is one of numerous sites that I could put on the record. It does not have a gambling licence because it offers free entry and is not a lottery. It is a game of skill because they ask three simple questions. This originates from a case that was taken in Britain in the 1970s where it was defined that a lottery is not a lottery if a question is asked and the question is sufficiently difficult to rule out some participants. Now these questions are very simple. It also makes the point that it is not a lottery if one offers a free entry route. The point I am making here is that provision in section 74 is really good but it will not be worth the paper it is written on if the definitions of "game" and "lottery" on pages 17 and 18 of the Bill are not tight enough to ensure that having made a payment does not rule out what is really a game and what is really a lottery but, because they offered a free entry route, they can argue legally that they fall outside the definition.

As I said, I could pick up my phone and give the Minister of State another company. There is a villa in Spain and one can get €450,000 or take the villa. They will have half a dozen cars this week. These are multimillion euro operations. As I said, I will not even mention the charities, etc., because I want to focus on this because this the Minister of State needs to get right. The Minister of State needs to look at this. This is happening at the minute. This is happening at a time when we are dealing with other pieces of the legislation which I said I would not mention in this contribution, but this has to be got right. Otherwise, the Minister of State knows what we can do. The GAA can do exactly the same thing with a game of skill and can give a free entry. Nobody does the free entries. These websites have tickets for €100 and there is a free entry. Very few, obviously, some people, do a free entry. The issue is, it is there on the app, with PayPal, Apple Pay, etc. They are paying €100 instead of going through the free entry route with which one has to use a postcard and put the name and address on it. All the terms and conditions of these operations are exactly the same.

I make the point there is no point in dealing with this legislation unless this is watertight. We talk about blocking others coming into the jurisdiction and offering gaming activity. As I said, this company used be located in the jurisdiction. It is now outside the jurisdiction but all its advertising and promotion is done here. Were the Minister of State to tell Facebook that it does not have a licence or is not legal, by the time Facebook came back to him, it would say that the advertisement had now been removed. I will come to this later on because when we look at the powers in terms of social media companies, there are no penalties for the social media companies for continuing to host these type of advertisements. That is something else I would like to discuss.

My main issue here - the Minister of State can give out to me in relation to not being here earlier on but I said that we were ahead of schedule - is I want to get this legislation right. I believe that there is an issue with gambling. I also believe there is an issue, in that we have to support our sectors such as sport. I also recognise that there are ways around our existing legislation, which I believe have not been closed down in this legislation and I do not think anybody in this House wants that.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendment No. 17. It is a common-sense amendment. People with lived experience add value. It is not only me saying that as it is evidence-based and has been proven.

I worked in addiction services for countless years before I came in here and I have seen people with drug problems, alcohol problems and gambling problems. I have also seen these people recover. I have also seen these people come into organisations, whether to work directly for organisations or to come onto the board of organisations, and add value to those organisations. It is imperative that people with lived experience have their voice on the authority in order that they can bring that unique perspective.

When I worked on addiction services right across the board - I mentioned drugs and alcohol but even people with sex addiction and gambling addictions - and while addiction is the common trait, each individual addiction has different traits. This is where people who have gambling issues and gambling problems would offer that unique perspective if they were on the authority.

If you are taking drugs or alcohol, there is only so much drugs and drink you can take before you either pass out or are taken out of society. If you have a gambling problem, as long as you have the ability to put money on whatever it might be or the ability to get the money to put on, which is often where the problems come in, you can go on 24-7. That is where having somebody with that lived experience on a board or on the authority would be imperative.

I came from a really good presentation at the opening of a recovery café in the Clondalkin Addiction Support Programme today.

The message we got is recovery is possible, but people who are in recovery need to have the support of people like us and people in society to allow them to move on. As I said, people with lived experience have that insight. They could be on the authority and give that unique insight in a balanced way, so it is not all coming from the one way. This is a no-brainer. It is something we really need to look at to ensure we get it right and have people with real-life lived experience having their say in this really important matter.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On section 74 and dealing with unlicensed operators and non-payment, we are satisfied it covers all the situations, but I am happy to look at it again and engage with the Deputy because we want the same thing here. If the Deputy has identified a gap we will certainly make a change to amend it.

On amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 20, I note the Deputies have proposed two insertions of new subsections (4) and (5) into section 13 in amendment No. 17. The first of these concerns appointing a person with lived experience of harmful gambling to the board of the authority. The second seeks to limit the number of members of the board who have been employed in the gambling sector. From my recollection of the points raised on Second and Committee Stages of this Bill, Deputy Gould raised this matter and tabled similar amendments, as alluded to. It is still my opinion, similarly to the Deputy, that the authority should benefit from the experience of those with lived experience of gambling. However, I do not agree the amendment proposed on this matter is necessary. As Deputies will appreciate, the membership of the authority should reflect a broad range of expertise on, and experience of, the gambling sector. Section 15 provides, "The Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the selection criteria and procedures that are to apply to the selection process ..." for members of the authority. Such criteria include that the members of the authority possess experience in matters such as gambling activities and separately the pathology and treatment of addiction, with particular reference to gambling addiction. Both these criteria can relate to and encompass lived experience of gambling.

Deputies will also be aware the authority will have power to establish advisory committees to assist in a range of matters relating to its functions. Benefits from the lived experience of those affected by gambling will be an essential element of the committee and Deputies should remember this legislation is coming from a public health perspective. Furthermore, it is my intention that when it comes to setting up the process to invite applications for membership of the authority, that process will reflect the need for lived experience of gambling. It is important to me the membership of the authority reflect a broad range of all experience to do with gambling given the nature and scale of this situation. I will not, therefore, be accepting the proposed amendment on this matter, but I will certainly keep it under review.

Moving to the second subsection the Deputies propose to insert into section 13, section 14(3) of the Bill already explicitly provides for the independence of the authority when it is exercising its function and does not need to be restated. As I stated on Committee Stage, I have no objection in principle to the overall intention of the second part of the proposed amendment, but on reflection it is not practicable. It is next to impossible to identify who could be a potential licence-holder and as such any and every person could be potential licence holders and be excluded from selection for the purposes of this section.

I cannot accept amendment No. 18. The Bill provides under section 14(1)(m) that one of the functions of the gambling regulatory authority will be a competent authority under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. As such, it would be subject to the requirements of section 63D of that Act, which provides that competent authorities must adopt a risk-based approach to the exercise of their supervisory functions and review their assessment of the money-laundering and terrorist financing risk profile of the businesses they supervise. Thus, there is already an obligation there to carry out risk assessments. The anti-money laundering steering committee the proposed amendment refers to is not provided for in legislation currently and therefore the amendment is not necessary.

On amendment No. 20, on Committee Stage the Deputies expressed concern at the potential level of outsourcing the authority could engage in. I cannot accept the amendment because, put simply, gambling is a hugely complex and constantly evolving area and it is likely the authority will have to engage with those third-party experts who advise and engage with other major regulatory bodies like the Malta Gaming Authority and the UK Gambling Commission as it builds up its expertise. There is sufficient oversight built into the Bill as it is. In the first instance, the Bill provides the chief executive of the authority be accountable to the public accounts committee and to other Oireachtas committees for the authority’s activities. Furthermore, I am satisfied the Bill includes sufficient safeguards and requirements to ensure the authority complies with all necessary guidance and procedures by recognising that while the authority will need to rely on external expertise it must act responsibly when engaging with those external parties. The authority will be obliged to adhere to all public sector procedures for all matters, including procurement.

As I stated on Committee Stage, expenditure of public funds must be done in ways that are appropriate and, importantly, accountable and transparent. The authority as a responsible public sector organisation will be expected to report on procurement and its engagement of external third parties in its annual accounts and annual reports. It will be a statutory obligation for it to submit its annual accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Both the annual accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on those accounts must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. In addition, the Bill contains a further level of oversight, by providing the authority, when requested to do so by the Minister or the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, must provide information in writing relating to the funding of the authority. On top of these requirements, section 33 provides that the Minister may “request the Authority to make a report to him or her on any matter relating to the functions of the Authority”, including procurement and financial matters. The authority will be obliged to comply with such a request. For all these reasons, I am satisfied the Bill as it stands includes sufficient oversight of the authority’s activities and I will not be accepting the Deputies’ amendments.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed the Minister of State will not accept the two proposals we made in amendment No. 17. He recognised the importance of people with lived experience being on the authority. The problem is if is not copperfastened in the legislation there is no guarantee we will have a person with lived experience on the board and it is vital the authority has that vast experience available to it.

I will not delay us longer, but with people in the industry, we must ensure the integrity and we must ensure a cap of no more than two members on the authority from the industry. It is vital for transparency and so the authority can be completely independent and not pushed or manipulated by any group or organisation. Due to these two points, I will have to press the amendment.

As for amendment No. 20, we are asking that if there is outsourcing there be reports brought forward from the Office of Government Procurement and for those reports to be presented annually. We are not taking away the authority's ability to bring in outside experts or groups to get work done outside the authority, but where it does, a report on that work should be prepared and published annually.

I hear what the Minister of State is saying. We are trying to be constructive and positive with the Bill. We are trying to protect people who are at risk of gambling harm. Having people with lived experience on the board is vital.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I feel the same as Deputy Gould. When you are in the throes of addiction you can lose hope. It is a really dark place to be. When you enter into recovery you get your hope back and it is an absolutely fantastic place to be. I was at a presentation at a recovery café and other parts of an addiction centre today and I could see the hope and the recovery in the room. The people in there who show bravery and have the support to come through that journey need to know we are listening to them in here. They need to know they are valued in this place. As I said, each different part of addiction, be it alcohol, Internet, gambling or whatever it might be have traits right across, such as the loss of hope and all that, but gamblers have that unique insight into gambling and having them on the authority to have their voice there will send out a clear message. It will send a clear message that we listen to them and value them and that their journey is not in vain. It is about having somebody on that authority with lived experience. Having it stated in legislation there should be at least one person on that authority with lived experience would send out a clear message of hope and value to people who showed bravery and courage to come through their addiction journey.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State want to come in?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I do not.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 26, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(s) participating in the revision of the money laundering or terrorist financing risk assessment as it relates to gambling biennially in collaboration with the Anti-Money Laundering Steering Committee, liaising with An Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners, and any other relevant bodies.”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 26, line 39, to delete “subsection (1)” and substitute “subsection (2)”.

The amendment fixes an incorrect reference to "subsection (1)" in section 15(3)(c) by replacing it with the correct reference "subsection (2)".

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 28, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(4) The Office of Government Procurement and the Authority shall produce an annual report, to be laid before the Oireachtas, detailing any and all activities under this section.”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 33, lines 27 to 32, to delete all words from and including “(1) The Authority” in line 27 down to and including line 32 and substitute the following: “(1) The Authority shall, with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, make a scheme or schemes for the granting of superannuation benefits to, or in respect of, a person—

(a) appointed chief executive who on such appointment is not, or does not become, a member of the Single Public Service Pension Scheme, or

(b) who, on becoming a member of staff of the Authority, is not, or does not become, a member of that Scheme.”.

Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive, are technical amendments following advice from the work of the pensions division of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

Amendment No. 21 clarifies the position in the case of a person appointed as chief executive who is or becomes a member of the single public service pension scheme. Along with amendment No. 22, it provides that any superannuation scheme made or amended by the authority will be done with the approval of the Minister for Justice, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

Amendment No. 23 is a follow-up consequential amendment to section 26(4) clarifying that it is the Minister for Justice who approves the superannuation scheme.

Amendment No. 24 deletes section 26(5) regarding appeals relating to superannuation benefit, as section 26(6) already provides for a dispute resolution mechanism.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments, as the Minister of State said, are technical and deal with the staffing of the authority. The previous amendments from my colleagues also looked at staffing of the authority. It is a positive part of the legislation that we have an authority that will regulate gambling in the State, which we did not have until now. There will be much responsibility on the staff and those carrying out these functions. These amendments deal with superannuation. I do not see any problem with them.

However, there is a step change intended in the Bill regarding the new authority using the powers it has. I have serious concerns and will give an example relating to what the staff whose pensions are referred to in the amendment will have to adjudicate on. The old legislation from 1957, much of it going back to the original legislation of 1931, is so outdated it is unbelievable. There was no authority to regulate it so people did what they did and got on with it. The game is about to change because we are setting up an authority, which we in Sinn Féin support, to regulate properly. I have concerns around the gaming licence for philanthropic purpose, which many of the sports organisations, charities, cancer support groups and others we spoke of earlier will be applying for. There are three different types of licence they can apply for: an "in-person" one, one "by remote means" or one that is "in-person and remote". Correct me if I am wrong but I understand "by remote means" will mean by an app, social media, a website and so on, while "in-person" will mean selling face to face. The problem is we take the definition from the Act of 1957, which everybody ignores. The definition in section 87 of the present Bill states:

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 a premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity,

(b) by remote means, or

(c) from a premises in the State to a person who attends the premises to participate in the activity and by remote means.

There is no €10,000 exemption from this section so this includes every group, whether their fund is €2,000 or whatever. The 50-50 draws the local GAA does are not allowed to be sold any more in a local pub or supermarket or even at the pitch during a GAA match. The legislation confers responsibility on the members of the authority the amendment deals with. That will mean that as you make the application, you will have to state the premises where the in-person activity is taking place. How has this worked heretofore? People just disregarded it. They sold 50-50 tickets at the GAA pitch, set up a wee stall at a local shop or went into pubs at night. That is fine. The law was the law. They were breaking the law but nobody was paying a blind bit of attention. We have an authority now which we do not want to ignore grey areas. We are setting it up to police and regulate this area. Therefore, we cannot define the lottery in such a way that people break it straight away. What happens then? In the North for years they did national lotteries, then an objection was put into the PSNI and it stopped because the law is the law. That is just an example.

I have other issues with the definitions. The Minister of State said he is happy to engage with us on that. "Betting" does not have a proper definition in this legislation. It is far too vague and loose. This is a valuable and lucrative industry and people will look at the legislation and at ways to get round it. We will be asking the staff to make decisions on the laws we pass and this legislation is clear you can sell a ticket in person or remotely but when it is in person it has to be to a person who attends at the premises to participate in an activity. That is what it says in the existing law but everybody turns a blind eye to it. Let us not set up an authority which we ask, with our eyes wide open, to turn a blind eye because of the definitions in the legislation.

There are a number of other areas I could mention but I know I am taking liberty in terms of this section.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is right the regulation authority will be important to ensuring the legislation is enforced, that we have ongoing feedback to the Minister and that we do not have a situation where we pass legislation, it goes out of date quickly and we are all waiting around for it to be changed. Things are changing quite rapidly. I always give the example of the big hullabaloo about 15 years ago about a casino opening in Tipperary and the dangers it was going to cause. Every 10-year-old is going around with a casino in their back pocket now and things are changing even more quickly.

The Deputy probably has a point on this one. We all know our local clubs get the tickets and go off their premises. The definition probably is too tight. If that is the case, I will certainly undertake to change it.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 33, line 37, to delete “The Authority may, with the approval of” and substitute “The Authority may, with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 34, lines 1 and 2, to delete “for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 34, to delete lines 4 and 5.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 38, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“Authority subject to Freedom of Information

34. The Authority shall be subject to section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014.”.

This amendment makes the authority, Údarás Rialála Cearrbhachais na hÉireann, subject to the Freedom of Information Act. We are not sure whether this will automatically happen. The Minister may be able to shed some light on that. It would emphasise the importance of transparency in relation to this new authority that is to be set up, so that if there are difficulties, it can be opened up.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is self-explanatory that the authority should come under the Freedom of Information Act. This is important. There is the whole issue of transparency, accountability and independence. Why would we not grant the ability to make an FOI request? The Minister of State might not think it is necessary. We discussed it at the justice committee. It is always important to put in protections and we feel this is a protection that could be added in. We do not see the reason why it cannot be added in. Why would we not do it? The freedom of information request is a very important tool for people. We had a conversation earlier about having people with lived experience on the board or limiting the amount of people from the industry on the board. That is why freedom of information is really important for independence and transparency. I ask the Minister of State to look at it again.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 64 of the Bill provides for an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 2014. The intention of the amendment in this Bill is that the members of the authority, staff of the authority, authorised officers of the authority, and the appeals panels, the appeals board, appeals officers and adjudication officers will be subject to the obligations of the Freedom of Information Act concerning their respective functions but only insofar as it relates to records on general administration. This means that records relating to matters to do with administration and operation of the authority such as expenditure, procurement contracts, human resources and so on will be subject to provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This policy reflects the freedom of information obligations of An Garda Síochána, the Office of the Information Commissioner, and the Insolvency Service of Ireland. Records that do not relate to general administration would be exempt. A practical example of this is that the records concerning applications for licensing, charges imposed on licensees where they are related to turnover, investigations, adjudication processes, etc., would be exempt from the FOI Act.

As Deputies will appreciate, the authority will come into possession of a significant amount of information relating to applicants for new licences or those who wish to renew licences. In addition to personal data these records will contain information that is commercially sensitive. Records containing commercially sensitive information could not be released without risk to individuals and companies concerned, and especially as the information contained therein could be used to gain an unfair commercial or competitive advantage.

It is important to emphasise that as one of the customer safety measures in the Bill the register of licensees will be public and accessible. It will be clear to see who or what is licensed to provide gambling activities and related services. Deputies will also note that we will amend those sections of the Bill to provide that the register will include additional information concerning licensees and their operations.

With regard to the Bill's compliance and enforcement provisions the authority is likely to come into possession of or create a considerable number of records relating to the alleged suspected non-compliance by gambling licensees. These records may be relevant in the context of investigations and prosecutions. Deputies will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to have such records releasable under the Freedom of Information Act as this could potentially hinder, delay or frustrate the bringing of prosecutions. This would result in the erosion of public confidence in the effectiveness of the authority as a credible, robust and responsive regulator. As a comparator, the Garda Síochána Inspectorate has a freedom of information exemption with regard to records concerning inspections or inquiries that it carries out. As mentioned earlier, An Garda Síochána has an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act other than in relation to general administration. As such, records of investigations are also exempt. Records with regard to the charges imposed on individual licensees in order to fund the operational expense of the authority will similarly not be suitable for release. To do so would result in making commercially sensitive information publicly available. This would not just leave the licensee in a very vulnerable and unfair market position but the information could also be used to a inform or facilitate illegal activity by third parties.

It is envisaged that the authority will have a detailed and accurate website with information for licensees, for the applicants for licences, and for the general public. The authority will be obliged to submit its annual reports and annual accounts to the Minister. Such reports will be laid before both Houses. I believe that these reporting obligations in addition to the publication of the register of licensees and my proposed amendment to bring the authority and related entities under the scope of the National Archives Act 1986 will be an effective suite of measures to ensure adequate transparency. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment to section 64.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State referred to the exemption for An Garda Síochána. I do not know how we can correlate an exemption for An Garda Síochána, which is for very sensitive information, and an exemption for a gambling authority. To be honest that does not sit with me.

The Minister of State spoke about the systems being set up already to ensure transparency. In another section, the issue will come up on levies that will be put onto companies. Perhaps I picked the Minister of State up wrong and maybe he will clarify. The Minister of State said the information on what levies or charges would be faced by licensees should not be public knowledge. I would like to bring forward an amendment on this, but from my point of view the products that are most addictive should have a higher levy. This type of model is used in New Zealand. I will speak on this shortly. This is why we need the transparency and the freedom of information. If some companies have a product with a certain level of addiction or risk and other products have a much higher risk then we need to know. There is also the issue of profitability. Some companies are making huge profits on certain products. We do not know about those products. We know for a fact there are certain products that are highly addictive and are especially targeted at people who are at risk of problem gambling. We need to know that information. Why would that information be kept confidential and not for the public view?

We believe this amendment is constructive. I hear what the Minister of State said and that he feels it is covered but I do not believe it goes far enough. The whole issue of transparency must go to the heart of this.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a couple of quick points on that, including on An Garda Síochána and the comparators around the investigative and prosecutorial roles. This is why those parts are being exempt. This authority would have investigatory and prosecutorial roles.

The rate of the levy will be public knowledge and it will be based on turnover. The information that is sensitive is the information inputted from an individual company to calculate its levy rate. That would be commercially sensitive information. The levy rate will be made available and will be based on turnover but the individual calculations will not be.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will come to the levy in Deputy Gould's next amendment but I have not heard a convincing argument as to why they do not come under freedom of information. We know that a lot of freedom information requests do not work anyway. We wait months to get to get answers and on many occasions we get an answer back that it is considered commercially sensitive or so on. A lot of this would not be subject to freedom of information - the basis on which the levy is calculated. I understand that but what would be subject to freedom information is, for example, if a large operator was arguing with the authority that the definition in the Act does not allow it to do X,Y or Z, or it could be the case that the authority says a dominant player in the industry requires that a number of factors would be taken into account, as set out in the legislation. When we name them they have to be taken into account and they have to form the basis of it. I believe that advertising is one of the factors, as I understand it, but a dominant operator may not advertise that much because it is the dominant player. It could argue, therefore, that because this factor is referenced it should have a reduction. None of that communication would be available to members of the public. The authority may decide to side with it in relation to that. I do not understand. All commercially sensitive material is not subject to freedom of information anyway, but ordinary communication between the authority and the individuals should be, if it is not commercially sensitive, or the parts that are commercially sensitive could be redacted. These scenarios could unfold and the public should know about it. We are trying to lift the curtain and let people see exactly what is happening. I strongly support Deputy Gould's amendment.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has finished his contribution but by way of exception I can let him comment on what the Deputies have said. Does the Minister of State wish to make a brief comment?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Gould wish to come back in as the proposer?

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe we should bring in the amendment and I will press it but I will not call a vote.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 48, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“(4) The contributions to the Social Impact Fund under subsection (3) shall be calculated having regard to -

(a) the size of licence holders’ operations,

(b) the gambling services and activities being offered by licence holders,

(c) the potential harm/risk associated with the gambling services and activities offered by licence holders,

(d) the percentage of turnover spent by the licence holder on advertising and promotion,

(e) licence holders’ turnover, and

(f) any other matter that the Authority may specify.”.

I am aware that a social impact fund will be introduced under section 49, which will be managed and controlled by the new údarás.

Head 113 of the heads of Bill originally provided that the authority will make provision for the same within statutory instruments but the Bill does not include the same level of detail. What we are proposing is that the contributions to the social impact fund be calculated having regard to the size of the operations, the gambling services and activities offered by the licence holders and the potential harm or risk associated with the services and activities operated or offered by licence holders, the percentage of turnover spent by the licence holder on advertising and promotion, the actual turnover and any other matter that the new údarás may specify. I am interested in hearing what the Minister of State has to say about it.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Daly. The one advantage we have with this Bill is that we are able to look at the legislation that is in place globally, see what has and has not worked and cherry-pick to ensure our Bill is the best legislation possible. The industry is providing funding to certain groups to provide education, counselling or a website where people can go if they think they are at risk of gambling harm but it is not a true reflection of the profits these companies are making and the effect gambling is having on people. We want to see a fund based on the size of the company and the profits it makes. The New Zealand model has a much stronger social impact fund. Companies with products that are the most addictive pay more. That model seeks to limit companies that provide products that are harmful.

The Minister of State spoke passionately about the significant problems relating to gambling addiction and harm. I have spoken to different groups that deal with people in addiction and those in recovery. They tell me there is a significant lack of support, be it counselling, therapies or education. We want to see this fund bring enough money to the gambling authority so that we can have supports. There are no stand-alone therapies for people in the throes of gambling addiction. We want to see this fund funding those therapies so that people who are in the throes of addiction or those at risk get the help they need.

Young people are being targeted. During Covid we saw the extent of targeting of younger people to get them to sign up. Some of the advertisements now are so sophisticated. We support what the Minister of State is trying to do with regard to blocking these ads but we also need to educate our younger people. We know that teenagers and young men in their 20s are at significant risk. The statistics are there to show they are being targeted. I am a GAA man but I love all sports. Some gambling ads feature top Premiership players and other top sporting people. We want to send a clear message to the industry that if it is going to target people and provide very addictive products, there will be a cost and that cost will go back into to supporting people in addiction and recovery and into prevention because, at the end of the day, this Gambling Regulation Bill must have a fair and equitable social impact fund. This is a very constructive amendment.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Deputy that there is a lack of supports for people facing gambling addiction and non-substance addictions in general. They were not taken seriously for a long time. One of the key reasons for putting the social impact fund into this legislation is to make the industry pay for much of the damage it is causing.

Section 52 provides that the social impact fund shall be funded by annual contributions from licensees except for charitable or philanthropic licensees. Contributions to the fund will be determined by the authority in accordance with regulations made by the Minister. The purpose of the Deputy's amendment is to insert a new subsection 7 into section 52 to set out various criteria that the Minister must consider when determining the level of contribution to the social impact fund by licensees. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment. The section as drafted provides for the discretion of the authority to determine the needs of operating the social impact fund and the level of contributions required to operate the fund and to finance those activities and projects on an annual or multi-annual basis. I recognise the intention behind the Deputy's amendment. It is constructive and seeks to bring certainty to calculating the level of contributions to the fund from smaller licensees. I assure the Deputy that the contributions from small independent bookmakers will not be the same as those for large operators. I assure him that the purpose is to ensure there are sufficient funds for the social impact fund but the criteria set out in the amendment are not necessary to achieve that aim.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 30 and 34 are related and will be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 55, line 6, to delete “Subject to sections 66 and 67” and substitute “Subject to section 66”.

Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 30 and 34 are technical amendments. The first three are necessary due to the deletion of section 67 and to correct and update any renumbered section references as a result. Regarding amendment No. 34, as I outlined on Committee Stage, it is my intention to amend the advertising provisions in the Bill to provide greater clarity and certainty to licensees and persons providing advertising on licensees' behalf. In that context, the purpose of amendment No. 34 is to delete section 67 so as to provide that all measures relating to the regulation of gambling advertising will be addressed in Part 6 of the Bill.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first number of these amendments are just technical because the Minister of State is deleting section 67. Amendment No. 34 is more substantive because it gets rid of section 67, on persons advertising relevant gambling activity, in its entirety. The section is being replaced by other sections through a number of amendments.

The amendments are a great improvement on what we have now, and I welcome that. I will address the detail of the amendments when we come to them. I am concerned about the definitions. What we had in this section was a clear understanding of what "advertisement" included. An amendment introduced earlier by the Minister defined "advertisement" and the word "advertise" now includes "advertise by means of an image, sound or text". That is what I am not clear about. Will "advertise" now include, for example, a gambling company putting a post up on social media that includes an image saying, for example, "Cheltenham ... such and such ... back the winner here"?

That is not paid sponsorship but the Minister of State's definition does not include paid sponsorship. Is that categorised as advertisement? Does an advertisement also include the poster in the local shop that would advertise the draw for the local club? I want to clarify what exactly the definition is in regard to advertising as we deal with the deletion of this section, which deals with advertisement of the relevant gaming activity. That is important because this definition is changed away from what was probably a more expansive definition and it is important that we have clarity.

A former parliamentarian spoke to me about Committee Stage and Report Stage of a Bill and said they are very important because sometimes, when things are challenged in court and it is not clear, the discussion that we have on the floor of the House on a Bill provides the courts with the intention behind the legislation. It is important, therefore, that the Minister of State takes some time to explain what his intention is with regard to advertising.

A layperson would understand “advertise” as placing an advertisement in a paper where someone pays money for it, or they place an advertisement on social media and they pay Facebook, or they place an advertisement with a broadcaster and they pay the television or radio station, or it could be on on-demand audiovisual or on-demand sound, such as YouTube, Spotify and so on. My reading of the definition is that “advertise” does necessitate payment and it can be anything, for example, a post on Facebook. If we take one of the main operators in the country and globally, Paddy Power, will a post of Paddy Power on Facebook be advertisement and, therefore, fall into other provisions that arise later in the Bill? Paddy Power sometimes puts up funny things on social media, especially when it is slagging off Rangers. Given it has the company's name there, is that defined as advertisement because the company is advertising its name and it is involved in gambling activity?

On another point, the Government's intention is not to ban gambling. As I said, there is a major problem with addiction and problem gambling but we are not banning gambling. Many people have gambled in the past and have not developed addictions, and it is important to say that because that is not the position we are in at present. As I said, some of these charities and groups are using gambling as a way of fundraising but it is probably not seen by the community as gambling.

I would just make that point about the definition of advertising as we deal with this section.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the discussions, as someone who practised as a barrister for 13 years, I know it can often depend on the individual judge. Most have no interest in it but some do and, on occasion, they have looked to it.

The amendment is to ensure that what we might call brand advertising without a call to action is included. It is something that came up in a number of discussions. If someone puts up a post from Paddy Power and it is not calling on people to bet or do anything like that, but it is a brand and it is a gambling company, because it is a licence holder, it will be subject to all of the regulations and that will include advertising. That was the main reason for adjusting the advertising definition to ensure there were no ways around it. We wanted to avoid the 0.0-type situation arising with licence holders. Obviously, the regulator can continue to make recommendations and it will continue to be kept under review in any particular situation. The regulator can make further regulations or proposals on the time, place and frequency of advertising as well. We can come to that later. The intention here is to tighten it up to ensure there are no gaps, which is a good thing to do.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State said there is no call arising out of the display of the betting company’s name. If there was, for example, a Paddy Power comedy festival, as there was last year, would that be governed by this, would it be included or would it fall foul of the difficulties here?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Doherty can come in again before the Minister of State responds.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need clarity in this regard. We will discuss social media advertising later. The section refers to advertisement and targeted advertisement. Will the Minister of State clarify, using the definition that he has now used for “advertise”, which was dealt with on amendment No. 1, whether a post that is not sponsored paid advertisement will be deemed as advertisement? The section that refers to social media advertisement makes it clear that someone cannot enter into an arrangement with a social media company unless there are a number of provisions. Is that also for a post as opposed to a paid advertisement? Can the Minister of State clarify that advertisement includes the poster in the local shop or butcher advertising the car, the 50-50 draw or whatever it is? Previously, the definition included the display of a notice. I assume it does, but I just want to make the point that it does not require payment as such. Is that correct?

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened to Deputy Doherty’s point of view. We have a guy in our club, Vincent Ahern, who goes around and runs all the draws. He is a brilliant bit of stuff. He is going around bars and shops on Blarney Street on the north side of Cork city, putting up posters to advertise all of the different fundraising that the club will be running during the year. If we get to a situation where the draw is over €10,000 or it is for a car, is that advertising? We would love to have a house if anyone wants to donate a house to us that we could raffle because we certainly do not have the money for one. In any case, we would consider that advertising but only advertising what the club is doing. For clarity, does that come under this section and is it classed as advertising? This would affect all GAA clubs and other sporting, community and charitable organisations. They might be just putting up a poster in the local shop or school. We actually put some up on fences in the area so people driving by would see them. I would like clarity on that.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to a commercial gambling company putting a brand ad up where there is not a call to action and it is not calling it a bet, but it is posting it, for example, from its own Paddy Power Facebook page, yes, that is advertising, although I should not name particular commercial organisations. It is pushing its brand and it will be considered advertising. What we are doing here is setting out broad principles. We are giving the regulator the power to make detailed regulations around frequency and location to ensure any advertising is not excessive.

It is also important to be able to ensure that charities and sports organisations are not caught up either. The regulator would have the power to make distinctions around that as well. That is what we are doing here in terms of setting out the principles. If we put everything in black and white, we will end up back here again and again. We are trying to find a balance. I am happy to hear suggestions in this regard or on any concerns the Deputies may have. We will continue to look at it and review it because we do want to get this right.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 28, 31, 32, 49, 54, 65, 97 and 98 are related and may be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 55, line 12, to delete "the betting activity is" and substitute "the betting activity is pool betting that is".

With this series of amendments to the Bill, I am introducing a change for the benefit and protection of charitable and philanthropic licensees. As published, the Bill provides that the holder of a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose may provide gaming, betting or lotteries for the purposes of fund-raising. Following consideration of this approach, it was identified that there may be considerable financial risks for a charitable or philanthropic licensee to be able to offer the full range of betting activities permissible under the Bill. This opens the possibility for a charitable or philanthropic organisation to, in effect, act as a bookmaker and possibly incur serious financial losses. Depending on their ability to operate in such markets and the outcome of the events they took bets on would not be advisable and could potentially place charities and other good causes in difficulty. In this context, I propose to amend the Bill to restrict such licensees to offering and operating less risky gambling activities, such as lotteries, gaming and pool betting, such as a traditional race night, for example, for the purposes of fund-raising. Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 replace the references to betting for charitable and philanthropic licensees with references to pool betting in Schedule 2 of the Bill.

In summary, charitable and philanthropic licensees will not be able to offer the full range of bookmaker-style activities, only pool betting activities. This amendment will minimise the financial risk for those licensees and ensure that they can only operate such activities with the moneys paid by the participants. I am subject to correction but I have never come across any charity or sports club doing that anyway.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to give some clarity on amendment No. 54. A reference to "betting" is being removed and it is unclear why. The amendment seeks to delete "once-off gaming, betting or lottery activity or product" and substitute "once-off gaming or lottery activity or product". I know I always refer to my own club, St. Vincent's. I am on the board of management of Gaelscoil Pheig Sayers. They might hold a horse race night. Different organisations would have a horse race night or a dog race night. Does this amendment preclude or stop charities or sporting organisations from running those types of events? I am not clear on this point. We hold nights with ten sponsored races. They are pre-recorded races. Then on the night, people bet €2. That is the way they run. The video is shown and there is a winner. Does this type of activity come under this amendment. Is it affected? If it is not, that is fine but if it is, the Minister of State might give some clarity on it.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments are grouped so I am trying to look at the impact of all of them. Let us look at amendment No. 65. I am doing this on the hoof so apologies. Amendment No. 65 seeks to delete "game, betting activity or lottery" and substitute "game or lottery". That is being proposed for the purposes that the Minister of State has just outlined. Why would we want charities involved in betting, other than race nights? Deputy Gould's point is worthy of clarification in terms of pool betting. Section 65 refers to the type of game, betting activity or lottery activity. Basically, we are deleting the requirement for them to outline the betting activity when they are applying for a licence for pool betting activity. Is that the intention? This is a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose. Pool betting takes place at night at the races. Night at the races is very common. I have run many of them myself for different groups and charities. If a person is applying for a licence for those, the application will be blank at that stage. Is that what we are saying? A person will not even have to state "pool betting". We are deleting "betting activity" but we are not including "pool betting". That is my point. We are not saying that a person cannot get a licence for pool betting. I just want to tease this out.

I made a point regarding the definitions of "betting". This is a recurring theme I come back to. If I am trying to interpret this, a "bet" means a payment made to participate in betting. That is fair enough. What is the definition of "betting"? It says "betting" includes "pool betting", but I still do not have a definition of "betting". A definition of "betting" which is "betting includes pool betting". I do not understand what that means, for a start. We all have an understanding of "betting" but it is not me or the Minister of State who is going to try to find ways around this. There was a very clear definition in the original scheme. It was about a wager being offered for an event that had not taken place, that was to occur in the future and that the individual placing the wager was not a participant in the event. It was very clear. Sometimes in legislation, I understand that the more clarity provided, the more wriggle room is given to people to try to find a way around it. However, this seems extremely loose. This legislation repeals all the other pieces of legislation. If I looked at it I would not be able to find what a "bet" is. Other words such as "game", "lottery", "skill", "chance" and "future event" are defined but "bet" is not in this legislation.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding Deputy Gould's point, those race nights - I have been involved in many of them myself - would be covered under the pool betting side of it. What we are doing here is just to ensure that charities cannot, in effect, become bookmakers. That becomes a hugely high risk to them where they can incur huge losses, quite quickly. With the pool betting, the odds are fixed. Those types of race nights where people put in their €2 and they have videos will be covered under the pool betting side of it.

The definition was taken out on the advice of the Attorney General. I hear the Deputies' concerns and I will continue to consider that point.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear what the Minister of State is saying. Obviously, the Attorney General has his own team working on this. However, I think it is really problematic. We have bets, games and lotteries. That is what gambling is and to have no definition of "betting" is really problematic in legislation that will be the stand-alone and signature piece of legislation for us in this area. I make the point that we are on Report and Final Stages of this legislation which has been on the road for an unbelievably long time. The vast majority of it is really good but there are serious problems. We can fix the definitions but the other parts about the supports for local clubs and groups are more problematic.

Even pool betting is not defined in this. What people would know as tote betting is actually pool betting and the Bill is lacking, in my view, in that regard. I agree with the spirit and the idea behind the amendments. Philanthropic bodies and charities should have no involvement in this. It is too risky. They are dealing with people's money and all of the rest. There are things we will come to later on, for example, that are problematic, including the definition of a philanthropic licence. One of the requirements is that the applicant has to give an undertaking that 30% of the payments are for a philanthropic or charitable purpose. That is impossible. Nobody can give that undertaking. The legislation has to change the word payments to profits. Let us say a charity is holding a draw for a car, for example. The car cost €30,000 and the draw made €40,000, meaning the charity made €10,000 in profit.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, we are out of time.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The charity or philanthropic body would be delighted to get €10,000 but under the legislation, one third of it has to go to the charity, which is about €13,500. There is a problem with that part of the legislation.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The definitions are based on the recommendation of the Attorney General and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel but I hear the Deputy's concerns. I will take another look at it but, as I said, we have been given advice in relation to it.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 55, line 17, to delete “Subject to sections 66 and 67” and substitute “Subject to section 66”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 55, line 27, to delete “Subject to sections 66 and 67” and substitute “Subject to section 66”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 56, line 13, to delete “a betting activity” and substitute “pool betting”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 56, line 14, to delete “such activity” and substitute “such pool betting”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos 33 and Nos. 82 to 85, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 83 to 85, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendments Nos. 82. Amendments Nos. 33 and Nos. 82 to 85, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 56, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Prohibition of advertising 67. (1) A person shall not advertise gambling, or cause gambling to be advertised.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.”.

I want to acknowledge Mr. Mark Bradshaw who is in the Public Gallery this evening. He has been a stalwart campaigner in the area of gambling addiction.

The import of amendment No. 33 is to ban gambling advertising, notwithstanding what everybody has been saying heretofore about various different community events and fundraising activities that happen in all of our communities. Gambling is a vice that is misunderstood and there is an underestimation of the pure, debilitating power of gambling addiction on individuals and Irish society. When talking to Mark, he really impressed on me the fact that if you are an alcoholic, you do not really think that your next drink is going to solve your problems; if you have a drug addiction, you do not really think that your next hit is going to solve your problems; but if you are a gambler, you really do think that your next bet is going to solve all your problems. The debt that is being accumulated in people's lives, which is a silent killer, is affecting all facets of Irish life. There are gardaí who are impacted by this, who have debts that they have to pay that affect the way they do their work. I am quite sure there is a politician in here somewhere who has a gambling debt that he or she needs to deal with at some point. It is a silent pressure on them. I am quite sure there are people in sport and other areas of Irish life who have this silent issue in their lives. It is corrosive and nasty.

Recently I downloaded the LiveScore app to my phone. Typically, it is about football. The guy who suggested I download it told me to make sure I said I was under 18 on the app or I would be bombarded with gambling advertisements. Such is the way of our society. Either we do something about it or we do not, or we find loopholes and I have spoken about the charity sector, so I have been part of this debate. In 20 or 30 years' time we are probably going to wonder why we did not do more in this space. I do not think anybody would suggest now that we should have listened more to people who said that curtailing smoking advertising was a bad move or to those who suggest the same about alcohol advertising. I feel the same way about gambling advertising because it is absolutely everywhere. I am a sports fan but I understand that for half of young people, or possibly more, the thrill they get from watching a sports event is not necessarily that their team may score or win. Rather, it is the fact that if a team scores or a team wins or if an individual gets sent off or if there is a yellow card, a corner kick, a throw-in or whatever, they could potentially win money and that is the rush they get. Everything is being monetised. That basic, simple, pure joy that we would have all grown up with in terms of sport is now being monetised by highly inventive, pernicious and quite poisonous gambling companies that will say all the right things in terms of how they want people to learn more about addiction and how important it is to educate young people and all of this sort of stuff.

The role of the Oireachtas is to put curtailments on capitalism and on the market. The market does not have any conscience. It does not really care about the damage it is doing. The market is there to make money and our job is to ensure that we put curtailments on that basic instinct of the market. In that regard, we have to go further and have a blanket ban on the advertising of gambling. Some may feel that is too blunt, too clean and too harsh but not when one considers the silent pain that is happening throughout society. Senator Wall has spoken to me about the fact that for a whole generation of people who are his son's age, this is totally taking over their existence. Everything is online and advertisements are being pushed at them constantly. Also, to be frank, the idea of a 9 p.m. watershed is just not going to work. It is not going to last. We are going to have to go back and review that.

This is what we want to do with this amendment. I appreciate that the Minister of State has other pressures on him. I know the horse racing lobby is very powerful. The industry almost runs this place, with the money it gets every year from the Exchequer, supported by some people in the Opposition. Horse racing gets €100 million per year, all of it coming from bets. The Minister of State will tell me that it does not, but it does. Unquestionably, it gets €100 million that is directly linked to every bet that is put on, as well as the money that the horse and greyhound fund gets, 80% of which is spent on prize money, which is tax free. There is a whole swamp of intrigue here and various interest groups tend to get their way in this whole space. It is our collective responsibility to call a halt and to have a threshold of decency. We need to say that some things are worth more. Certainly, protecting children and protecting wider society is worth more. We must provide a buffer zone between the extremities of the capitalist system and the market and give people the ability to live their lives without this overwhelming pressure being put on them to bet, to continue to bet and to convince them, really subtly, that if they just place one more bet, all of their issues will be resolved. I am sure in time Members of the Oireachtas, members of An Garda Síochána, judges, barristers or others who are held in high esteem, like teachers, will come forward to say they felt this pressure and that it affected how they lived their lives and performed their duties.

That is what our amendment is trying to achieve. I will be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are grouped amendments. The one Deputy Ó Ríordáin referenced was amendment No. 82.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was amendment No. 33.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes but you also referenced amendment No. 82 in terms of the prohibition of certain hours.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure exactly where the Deputy is at in terms of advertising for community groups and so on. We now know that the definition of advertisement is not paid advertisement but that a social media post would also be deemed as advertisement. My view is that we should not be having commercial advertising in terms of gambling. I agree with the Deputy on that. It should be curtailed. That is my view. I recognise this legislation takes a step forward. I would like to hear from the Minister of State on the definition of "on-demand media service" and "on-demand sound service". I assume that is YouTube, Spotify and their equivalents. Just to clarify, does that the watershed we are talking about only applies in that case? They can do as much advertising as they want after that watershed, although the authority has the power to regulate that further. The reason I say that is that when we go to social media ads, again we can look at Paddy Power. It is one of the biggest Irish employers in America. It is a huge company. We use it not in a bad way, although some people may. It is dominant in the market and that is why I am using it as an example. It has 1.5 million Facebook followers. It can advertise as much as it wants to as many of its followers as often as it wants under this legislation. What it cannot do is put the ads on YouTube or Spotify until after 9 o'clock. I think there is an issue there. If we have a dominant player in the market where people who are already gambling are liking the page, the provisions here allow for them to be advertised to in a significant way.

I will diverge into something else. I mentioned the radio bingo. I do not think the Minister of State gave me a direct response. He suggested that I want exemptions for radio and so on. I am not looking for exceptions for radio. I am talking about a charity that provides 100% funding for palliative care for people in the north west. People in my community put their hands deep into their pockets to do that. Is it a form of gambling? Absolutely, under this and the previous legislation, it is a form of gambling but I genuinely see it through different eyes. I think most if not all of my community sees it differently. They are going to be banned. This section bans them. It does not just do so with on-demand media services and on-demand sound but also with a broadcaster and, as we know, a broadcaster is radio. Radio bingo is done by Ocean FM. Unless it does it late at night, which is not what is being proposed here, then it is banned.

In regard to books, I asked the question about what advertisement means. Can it be a poster in a shop? The Minister of State has made the point. What about the telly bingo books that are in shops in Kilcar, Gleann Cholm Cille and Donegal town? Are they to be banned as well, or do they have to be hidden under the counter because they will advertise gambling or a relevant activity? Even if the prize fund was less than €10,000, would the displaying of those books be a problem, or would a notice in the shop to say it was happening? That is where I think the real problem with this legislation is. In fairness to the Minister of State and the officials, they have gone a bit of the way there because they have decided to do the €10,000. What do people do? They aim to raise a large amount of money every year, hundreds of thousands of euro, that goes to support patients in palliative care and support families. This is how they do it. They have been doing it for years. Eyes wide open here, folks, we are banning this. They are going to be banned. They will not be allowed to operate that radio bingo as they currently do once this legislation passes. That is a serious problem. I know people, including in my own family, who have had cancer, as we all do, and we know the important work that charities do. When I go back to Donegal, they will ask me why the hell we are doing this. These are not the big companies that are pushing ads out all the time. You could argue that the bingo on the radio is that but I am not sure, to tell you the truth. I do not believe that. I think that is what is fundamentally wrong with this legislation. I have a serious problem with it.

Paddy Power will be able to push as many ads as it likes out to its Facebook followers as often as it wants with whatever prizes it wants to offer and all the nice colours and attractive ways to appeal to people to come in and place a bet. The charity supporting people in palliative care in my community, its operation stops when the President signs this law. That is a big problem and it is not one I will put my name to by supporting this legislation if it is not rectified. How could I face people knowing this is the consequence of it?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to amendment No. 83, which relates to advertising directly related to charity fundraising activities for not-for-profit organisations. I would like to pick up on Deputy Doherty's point. Palliative care should be paid for out of direct taxation. It should not be down to communities to have to do fundraising for such an essential service. Unfortunately, so many of our charities are doing the work that should be public services. Those public services should be paid for through direct taxation. That is the real dilemma that many of us have here. It is incredibly difficult to fundraise, as we know. Sometimes big organisation will run one event in the year and it is quite difficult to come up with ideas. I do not think they want to be involved in gambling. This is a real dilemma for us. I certainly do not want to damage people further.

I am very supportive of this legislation. I am aware of just how pernicious gambling is and how much it has even changed over the last 25 years. When you look at the horse and greyhound racing fund, that is what it was. When you start looking at those websites, it is football, politics, two flies going up a wall. That is what it is. Everything you can think of is offered as a choice for people. There is no doubt that this is an addiction that goes way beyond the kind of damage a person can do to themselves by drinking too much, for example. There is no limit or very often there is very little limit in terms of gambling.

We live in an imperfect world where those of us who are supportive of this legislation have some concerns about how those charities are going to manage. The other issue is that the Government itself will often look for matching funds for sports capital grants. How do you come up with €100,000? That is a real dilemma in terms of providing sporting organisations which are the very thing that divert children away from all kinds of harm. I do not believe that can be captured in the Bill. However, it touches on the Bill in terms of how to come up with the money to provide these without creating harm at the same time.