Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

SECTION 2

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 21, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(6) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act applies to gambling activities carried on by, or on the premises of, a private members’ club in like manner as it applies to such activities carried on by, or on the premises of, any other natural or legal person or unincorporated body of persons.”.

We spoke about this in the opening contributions last night about private clubs and gambling, not just in Dublin but throughout the country.The amendment asks that private clubs be listed under the new legislation. We went into detail last night so I will not go back over it. I would appreciate the Minister of State's reply.

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

I thank the Senator for his contribution. He has long been an advocate for gambling reform. The Bill provides that any person who provides a gambling activity whether for a commercial, charitable or philanthropic purpose must have a licence from the authority. There are no exemptions, save for the few very specific circumstances set out in sections 89 and 90. Commercial operators operating from a premises could describe themselves as a casino, private members' club, sports club, sportsbook or bingo hall. Irrespective of what they call themselves, they will need an appropriate in-person gambling licence from the authority to offer gambling activities from a premises. Similarly, unincorporated bodies will need a licence to offer gambling activities. This is similar to alcohol licensing in the State if it is a GAA or soccer club, for example. Being an unincorporated body or describing itself as a club, however, is no exemption from holding a licence that is required to provide for any regulated activity and gambling is no exception. As Senators will have seen, the Bill includes a number of provisions to address operating without a licence. Section 65 provides that any person who provides a gambling activity in this State without a licence shall be guilty of an offence and may face penalties of up to eight years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. In addition, section 73 provides the authority with the ability to seek orders to deal with unlicensed operators. These include orders to cease any unlicensed activities, block financial transactions by unlicensed operators and block the disposal, removal from the State or reduction of assets below a certain level by unlicensed operators.

Senators will have seen the amendment I intend to table on this Stage which contains consequential amendments to the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 and a number of transitional arrangements in respect of that Act. Any person providing gambling activities pursuant to a licence under the 1929, 1931 and 1956 Acts must provide a certificate of fitness for the purposes of compliance with any money laundering obligations and is still required to hold a licence to do so under those Acts. Once the authority starts issuing its own licences, those issued licences under previous Acts may continue to do so for a transitional period. If you offer a gambling activity in this State, irrespective of how you describe yourself, you will be required to hold a licence from the authority. Those who attempt to circumvent this requirement will face severe consequences. I agree with the Senators' intention but we are satisfied that current legislation as drafted will cover those organisations currently describe themselves as members' clubs.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the clarity by the Minister of State. Our amendment was for the avoidance of doubt and clarity has been given. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 are related and may be discussed together.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 21, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “Non-application of Act

3. This Act does not apply to gambling activities carried on, by or on behalf of an

organisation that is a registered charitable organisation under the Charities Act 2009.”.

There was a lot of discussion in the Dáil about charities and the effect this gambling legislation would have on them. We have been contacted in the past couple of days to the effect that a lot of charities are happy with the amendments tabled. We in this House want to hear how those amendments will, or will not, affect, more importantly, charities, registered charities and their much-needed fund-raising. Is the Minister of State happy that what is being brought forward will ensure charities will not be affected by this most welcome legislation? The fund-raising they do is essential to all of our communities. I await the his reply.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad amendment Nos. 39 and 40 are being considered together. Both aim to address issues raised by charitable organisations and sporting bodies. They are concerned about the impact the Bill will have on their fund-raising. Our amendments are comprehensive and give a role to the regulator in deciding what is a relevant body. They also close off a loophole by which a gambling company could team up with a charity to circumvent the Bill by requiring it to be for its sole benefit. It gives the Minister a role in making decisions in respect of how it functions. Sporting clubs and charities have significant concerns regarding the impact of this Bill on their fund-raising efforts. We wait for those concerns to be addressed.

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

I thank Senators for their contributions. I understand their intention. It is important to note that charities and other organisations are already subject to the regulation via the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 where they operate and promote lotteries as part of their fundraising model. This Bill contains the existing policy and measures, albeit modernised, provided for in the 1956 Act. The exclusion of the charity sector from the provisions of the Bill completely would result in the removal of certain safeguards and protections the sector has complied with for nearly 70 years. The Government does not equate the charity sector with commercial gambling operators in that charities that offer gambling activities as part of their fund-raising model must remain properly regulated in that regard. To be clear, neither the Government or I equate the charity sector with any kind of bad actors or criminality. Unfortunately, we know of the rare but highly-damaging examples where some persons have abused their status as a charity for criminal activity or self gain but they are, thankfully, in the minority. In this legislation, while continuing the regulation of the charity sector that has been heretofore, we provide exemptions for the charity sector and philanthropic organisations such as sporting clubs from the advertisement requirements that would have unfairly impeded the charity sector and sporting organisations from being able to advertise the lotteries, etc., they have done heretofore. We ensure they have the exemptions sought by the charity sector in that respect. We do not support charities or sporting organisations stepping out of the legislation altogether. As I said, they have been regulated heretofore and that regulation is carried forward.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 21, between lines 30 and 31, 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;

(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),

provided such activities are for the sole benefit of the organisation or organisations.

(2) 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

There were concerns on Report Stage in the Dáil that the full repeal of section 36 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 might lead to bookmakers enforcing payment of unreasonable debts by people who ran up large debts with them. The amendment reintroduces this position and retains the protections provided in section 36 of that Act.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment Nos. 43 to 45, inclusive, and 337 are related and may be discussed together.

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

This is a technical amendment required on foot of amending the Bill to provide for transitional arrangements in respect of gambling legislation currently on the Statute Book. With regard to amendments Nos. 44 and 45 from the Labour Party, the effect of the Senators' proposed amendments to section 9 was to maintain the 1956 Act's statement that every contract by way of gaining or wagering is void. As Members may have seen earlier, I introduced a new section 6, which maintains that scenario for the betting sector and an amendment to section 49, which means the Senators' amendments to section 9 are no longer applicable. When section 9 is commenced in respect of the repeal of the Act of 1956, it will be the case that there is no provision stating contracts by way of gaming are void. I will address amendment No. 313 later to provide a statement similar to the old subsections 2 and 3 of section 9 to ensure contracts entered into before the repeal of the Act of 1956 remain unenforceable. Amendment No. 337 provides for the list of Acts to be repealed and relevant enactments to be revoked by the Bill. In effect, we are doing what the Labour Party amendments seek to do in our amendments.I welcome the students from Gaelscoil na Laochra, Birr, County Offaly. They are very welcome here today and I hope they enjoy their day in Dáil Éireann.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 47 to 60, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 54 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 53. Amendments Nos. 47 to 60, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 47:

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.”.

There are two parts to this amendment. The first is about the Minister having regard to ensuring that there is at least one member on the regulatory authority who has lived experience of harmful gambling behaviours. That is extremely important. The second is on the Minister appointing members to the authority, having regard to the independence of that authority and ensuring that no more than two members have recent experience in paid employment with any licenceholder or potential licenceholder. What we mean by "recent" is five years, which we have outlined in the amendment. This amendment reflects our desire for those in recovery to have a voice on the board. It also prevents double-jobbing or a revolving door and allows an opportunity to raise that while acknowledging that professional experience in the industry is not a bad thing overall.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment of Senators Gavan and Warfield, in particular on there being at least one member on the board with lived experience of harmful gambling behaviours. The Minister and I have long discussed lived experience in this context and I have spoken at length in this House about the lived experience of people who have gone through gambling addiction. That experience has got to form part of any board when we are talking about gambling harm reduction into the future. Sinn Féin has brought forward an apt amendment in this regard. As I have given in example after example, it is only when one or one's family member is forced into a gambling addiction by whatever means, that one knows what is going on. That understanding is so important to bring into any board in the future.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the thrust of this amendment and I understand where the Senators are coming from. I am conscious of the parameters that are laid down in section 13 regarding membership of the authority and the parameters laid down in section 15 in respect of the criteria for the Public Appointments Service that must be applied in recommending somebody to the Minister for appointment. Can the Minister of State address a number of issues in this area? First, amendment No. 37 has a reference to a person who has personal experience of harmful gambling. While the Minister of State has not indicated whether he will accept the amendment, will that be addressed in another way? Will there be a provision to allow the board to have that very valuable experience of harmful gambling behaviours? We know that part of the genesis and impetus of this Bill is to address exactly that behaviour. Even though this affects a small number of people, the extent to which they have an impact on their families and on wider society is enormous. Is it right, therefore, that the board should contain that level of experience?

Second, on the proposed insertion of subsection (5) in amendment No. 47 to do with having people who come from the industry, it would be undesirable and I presume the Minister or her successor in title would be totally opposed to a notion where the industry could conceivably take over those positions. If we look at section 15 and the criteria set down for the Public Appointments Service in selecting people for recommendation for appointment, many people with experience of the industry are going to come from the industry. Given the harmful practices of some industry players, what safeguards are there within the PAS and the Minister's office to ensure that such people are not selected for the board?

I also note that in section 13(3), there is a requirement that there be a certain number of men and women on the board. I personally do not agree with that. It is not necessary and people should be selected on merit. We should of course be striving to have balance between genders but that is not the only diversity we require. The kind of diversity that is being proposed by amendment No. 47 is arguably more valuable then gender diversity on the board. There are lots of aspects of society that may not be represented on the board through the achievement of section 13(3). What measures are planned to be put in place, either within the Public Appointments Service or the Minister’s office, with a view to achieving diversity that is actually reflective of society, including those who might have been the victims of gambling addiction?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also want to indicate my support for these constructive amendments from Sinn Féin. It will be useful to have no fewer then one member with lived experience. The lived experience of those who have experienced gambling addiction is very important. Equally important is the experience of those who have been impacted by harmful gambling behaviours. As Senator Wall said, we could all give examples of persons who have lost their family, of families who have lost their house and all financial security, of people who have lost their children or of children who have lost a parent due to harmful gambling behaviour. There is a strong case for lived personal experience. As I said, that applies both to people who have experienced gambling addiction and understand how it operates and to those who have experienced the impacts of it. In respect of the proposed subsection (5) in amendment No. 47, this is vital. It is very important that this does not become any sort of an industry body or anything that is perceived as a self-regulatory mechanism. It is necessary that this is seen as something completely independent from the industry and which operates to regulate the industry from the outside. We must ensure that we do not end up with multiple industry players in there who may or may not have an agenda to try to minimise the impact of the provisions or talk about how one can work around them. That is something we do not want to happen. That is not to say that everybody who comes from the industry might have that perspective - many may not - but it is important that we maximise the independence of the board and minimise the representation of those in paid employment in the industry in recent years.

That is complementary to our amendment No. 59 in this grouping. Senator Warfield is seeking to address this issue at the point of appointment. We are trying to address it somewhat later. We address it in page 28, between lines 7 and 8, where we look to insert into the criteria to be abided by members of the authority the clause "shall not be in receipt of pecuniary benefits from gambling licence holders". It seems obvious but it is important to state. Amendment No. 59 seeks a new criteria on the terms and conditions of membership of the authority that would exclude anyone who is in receipt of any pecuniary benefit from gambling licenceholders, whether in terms of employment or shareholding etc. It seems obvious that anyone who benefits monetarily from a gambling licenceholder should not also be in a position where they establish standards for gambling products, deal with complaints against the authority or perform the general functions of the authority. It would be a clear conflict of interest. Our amendment is quite simple but would copper-fasten it and I believe is complementary to the amendment put forward by Sinn Féin.

Our other amendments in this grouping relate primarily to the functions of the authority.Amendment No. 48 seeks to insert the following clause, "to monitor trends in gambling activities in the State,". Amendment No. 49 inserts the provision "to take measures to reduce or eliminate compulsive and problem gambling,". These relate to section 14 of the Bill setting out the functions of the new gambling regulator. Amendment No. 48 would impose an obligation on the authority to monitor the trends in gambling activity in the State and the provision in this section would charge the authority with licensing and supervising. The current provisions charge the authority with licensing, supervising and controlling gambling activity but it is also important that the authority would also monitor trends in gambling and gambling activity in order that the regulator effectively keeps abreast of and ahead of developments that are occurring in the industry. This is an industry in which practices can change very quickly. We have seen with issues in the past where industry can sometimes outpace the provisions which are there to regulate it, particularly in areas around innovation and technology, given the intrinsic links to that technology. We saw the shift to online gambling and to technology-mediated gambling and there can be very speedy changes and shifts in practices. If the regulator is not charged to watch where those trends occur and get ahead of them, then we are again going to be coming after the fact in talking about the new phenomena, be it from loot boxes to whatever other trends are emerging. Given the intrinsic link to gambling and technology, particularly post Covid, where a huge amount of the profiteering in the gambling industry is taking place online, we believe the new regulator should have a designated responsibility for monitoring trends and practices.

Amendment No. 49 separately imposes an obligation on the authority to take measures to reduce or eliminate compulsive and problem gambling. This amendment has the effect of giving the authority a mandate and a function to safeguard gambling participants, particularly those who are susceptible to problem gambling and gambling addiction. While there are various provisions within the Bill that refer to the need to safeguard participants in reducing excessive and compulsive gambling, we think it is a missed opportunity not to place these within the functions of the regulator and to recognise these as one of the very reasons we are bringing this legislation. One of the reasons it has been long called for is specifically for problem and compulsive gambling. Providing the authority with this function and mandate would send a very clear message of intent around the curtailment and elimination of excessive and compulsive gambling and an acknowledgement of the role to be played by the State agency responsible for the oversight of the industry in helping to achieve that. This is not simply the regulation of any other industry. This is not the regulation of milk production but the regulation of an industry where there is a significant risk of harm. This is one of the reasons we are looking for this specific regulator. The mandate of the authority should include a mandate that effectively gives the regulator permission to identify and try to work to minimise that harm.

As for amendment No. 52, when we move to the activities and functions of the industry, and the activities which the authority may engage with; the same principle applies. The activities would include the harms. This, again, is expanding on the functions in respect of public awareness. As the Bill is currently drafted, the agency is obliged to enhance public awareness in the licensing and regulation of gambling activities. It is not sufficient to simply state that it is licensed, how these activities are regulated and that these are the technical pathways of matters; the key point where public awareness is needed is in what we insert here, which are the harms and dangers posed to individuals, families and communities by problem and compulsive gambling. We do not want to be simply giving people awareness that this is regulated under X by the regulator and that this is the licenceholder, and so forth. We want to ensure that the public awareness extends to the potential harms and dangers to individuals, families and communities from problem and compulsive gambling. Imposing obligations on licensees in safeguarding participants is important but it would seem prudent that the regulator itself could also play an active role in communicating the potential harms and risks which can be posed by participation in gambling.

Given that the regulator is likely to have communication with the wider public on a frequent basis, it strikes me that this is an opportunity to be seized in improving public awareness about the risks associated with gambling and the safeguards available to gambling participants. Again, this is to minimise risk. It is one thing to say that there are obligations on licensees, because that is where people are already perhaps engaging in a gambling activity with one of the licensees and there should be caveats around how they are treated and engaged with. The advantage of having this mandate and message coming down from the authority itself is that one reaches those who are not yet gambling or in contact with the licensee, who are considering gambling and who may have a romanticised picture of what gambling might constitute. Rather than leaving it to the licensees, which are being given stronger obligations under this Bill that are welcome, they also have a motive to sell a product. Having this neutral and independent expert authority communicating a message directly to the public with no interest involved serves a very important purpose in preventing gambling and those who may be considering engaging in it in a dangerous way. This is perhaps a difference between having a message on the packets of cigarettes and having a message about smoking that is conveyed to the general public.

Amendment No. 53 proposes in page 26, line 5, after "activities" to insert,“having particular regard to the harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling”. These are two different versions of the of same amendment. Again, the gambling regulatory authority is charged with a research function under the Bill. This is a welcome provision but the scope of the research activities is limited at present. As drafted, the subsection provides that the regulator would simply engage in research relating to gambling activities. We believe the provisions around the functions in which the authority should engage are imprecise and the wording could perhaps be expanded to explicitly include an obligation to undertake research into the harms of excessive and compulsive gambling activity, as set out in amendment No. 53.

In a later section of the Bill, section 31, we suggest some of the additional areas where the authority may also undertake research and we have some amendments there which seek separately to expand these provisions. We list a few different areas of potential research, including perhaps activities which are not always identified as gambling activities but are effectively operating as gambling activities. We will come to those amendments later. Given the widely understood harms, that issue of addressing the harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling upfront should be mentioned in line 5 of page 26.

The need for a tightly regulated gambling industry stems from our understanding of the risks and harms and this is the root origin of why we are looking for greater regulation in this area. It seems it would be prudent to develop our understanding further through relevant targeted research in order that we can safeguard participants and our loved ones in the future. I ask the Minister of State to respond on this point. If he is of the view that the research functions are sufficiently fleshed out in later sections, then there may be the opportunity to name those issues of harm in the later sections of the Bill. We are open to the Minister of State's perspective on that matter.

I come to the last couple of amendments in this area. Amendment No. 54 proposes to insert, after gambling activities, "and emerging trends and technologies in the gambling industry". Amendment No. 54, like amendment No. 53, is seeking to expand the research function so that there would be research into emerging industry trends and technologies. We must ensure that the regulator has an eye to the future so that we can adequately safeguard gambling participants and would-be participants from the undue harm that we cannot necessarily foresee.This is about getting ahead of things.

According to the ESRI, online gambling accounts for three fifths of the total gambling spend of those engaged in problem gambling, with in-person spend making up the rest. Ten years ago the balance was completely different. Look how quickly it shifted, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic where gambling in the betting shop was the picture people had in their heads to online gambling. In the online space there are new technologies, new forms of promotion and new and insidious incentives. The psychology that relates to addiction and compulsion is constantly evolving. Vast resources are going into the technologies and mechanisms in the online space that are designed to keep people gambling for higher amounts, for longer and more frequently. That is shape-shifting all the time because it is a commercial activity. In that context, predatory tracking and profiling techniques are being used. The same advertisement or invitation to gamble tracks people across the Internet, wherever they go and whatever they do on the Internet. These kinds of issues are a regulatory and legislative conundrum that we would not have anticipated a few years ago. That is why having a research function with people looking at the trends and saying "This is something new the industry is trying" will ensure the authority can do its job in an effective way.

Amendment No. 54 is to ensure the industry undertakes its research, recognises the changing trends and technologies and is ready to take action in respect of them in an effective way.

Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a new function for the authority, which is the monitoring of international best practice in the licensing and regulation of gambling activities. A later section provides that the authority will engage in research activities looking at the international regulatory context, but the regulator should be keeping abreast of developments in international best practice as a central function. It should not just be a research project to the side, but a central function of the staff in the authority. The speed of development of online gambling is important with regard to the authority monitoring developments by liaising with international counterparts. Many operators in the Irish market are present in other markets internationally, with parent companies operating different brands in different markets. The companies learn from one another how to navigate regulatory challenges. A new innovative dubious practice will sometimes be piloted in one area to see how the regulator responds and then tweaked so as to be better able to avoid regulation in another jurisdiction. Given that the companies are learning from one another how to work around regulatory challenges, our regulatory authorities should also be working together to monitor international conduct in order that we can incorporate learning and best practices and keep pace with developments in the industry. While the Minister of State may be of the view that this is provided for to a sufficient extent in the research programme of the authority, it would be good for it to be a central function.

We talk about these trends, even, for example, the use of cryptocurrency. I may bring amendments on Report Stage about the areas of cryptocurrency and gambling presented as stock market or currency speculation, but effectively operating as gambling. Many years ago - I am breaking from the notes by the expert who is Senator Ruane and would like to be here herself - I remember meeting attorneys general. I spoke about data protection to a conference of US state attorneys general. Multiple lobbyists were present who were engaged in cryptocurrency and in gambling activities associated with cryptocurrency. They were there to lobby the US attorneys general and we began to see the exact same kinds of practices and trends a year or two later with cryptocurrency lobbying taking place in Ireland and the rest of Europe. Similarly, the gambling industry tests its arguments in different jurisdictions and we need to be ahead of that.

Amendment No. 57 proposes:

In page 26, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“(b) the need to ensure that persons recommended to the Minister under subsection (2) are not affected by conflicts of interest, ”.

This amends the section others have spoken about on the appointment of members of the regulatory authority that sets out the various requirements to be met by a person to be recommended. Amendment No. 57 seeks to expand on the eligibility criteria to ensure that individuals who would be affected by a conflict of interest would not be eligible to serve as members of the regulatory authority. This complements Sinn Féin's earlier amendment. It is to ensure that no one who may have a material interest in the performance or otherwise of the gambling industry is shaping the regulatory landscape. This is a similar point to that made by amendment No. 59 to which I do not need to return.

My last amendment in this grouping is amendment No. 58, which seeks to insert data protection as one of the areas of expertise which it would be beneficial for members of the regulatory authority to possess. Given the extent to which participants' personal data is being gathered, profiled and analysed by the gambling industry and the detailed micro-targeting that takes place on the basis of those profiles and gathered personal data, it is imperative that the authority would contain expertise in the area of data protection, data privacy and data regulation. I am particularly concerned by the extent to which the Bill addresses concerns in the area of data protection and data privacy. The practices of gambling companies in respect of personal data are becoming more and more predatory. That is a hard word but it is effectively a predatory approach to the harvesting, profiling and use of personal data. Vast tracts of participants' personal data are being harnessed to develop bespoke personalised profiles which provide licensees windows into the lives, behaviours and vulnerabilities of their customers. Gambling companies do not tend to use this data to safeguard their users. More often they use the assembled data and profiles to get their customers to spend more time and money on their apps and websites. This is the nub of how the online section of gambling has managed to increase so much and why so much problem gambling is now taking place in the online space. The data points connected by these companies and their third party service providers - this is where the international piece comes in again; in some cases third party service providers are located in the US to seek to avoid or minimise EU data rules - can include people's browsing history, information on their spending habits, demographic data, behavioural information, the things they are most likely to bet on and the time of day in which they are most open to betting. In some cases the information can be shared between different brands owned by a parent company luring participants to spend more time and money gambling with different services and making it more difficult for people who suffer from gambling addiction to create space between them and their addiction. For example, even when people quit a service they recognise is a danger for them because they recognise their addictive behaviour, another service owned by the same parent company can suddenly start to present itself and try to hook them back into gambling practices. If we want the regulator to be able to meaningfully address concerns around data privacy and the abuse of personal data, it is important it possess the relevant expertise and understanding. This amendment would ensure the expertise would be reflected in the authority's membership. It is a simple but important change, which I implore the Minister of State to accept. Simply having it listed as one of the factors would greatly add to the efficacy of the authority's work.

That was quite a long intervention because we had a number of amendments in this grouping.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Senator O'Reilly, I welcome the members of the Men's Shed from Cork. I hope they enjoy their day at the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join in the welcome to the gentlemen from the Men’s Shed. Like me, I can see that they have a lot of accumulated life experience. They can only be impressed by being present in the Seanad when we are discussing such a serious matter. It has to give them some confidence in the institution that this is the material we are dealing with and that we are trying to alleviate one of the greatest social ills of our time.

I will revert to a sentence I said last night, in that it is great that we are here and it is wonderful that this is what we are doing. This will be an organic process. If we get the Bill passed and get the authority up and going, we can only hone it to better effect as time goes on.

I will respond to some of the amendments as succinctly as I can. Regarding amendment No. 47, I agree with Senators Gavan and Warfield in principle, in that there is merit in having people on the authority with personal life experience and who, thank God, have come out the other end. I know such people, as I am sure the Minister of State does. They are people with a great deal to offer, so the principle of the first subsection is good. The amendment’s second subsection is also good, in that we should not employ people with a vested interest in the industry. I assume that such provisions are within the Minister of State’s reasoning and are matters that he will ensure, insofar as practicable, in any case. I commend the principles to him and am interested in hearing his response to the details in terms of whether they are realistically a legislative prerogative. The amendment should be instructive to the process and perhaps he can show positivity in his response, as doing so would be in order.

Regarding amendment No. 49, reducing and eliminating compulsive gambling is implicit in Senator Higgins’s effort here – I agree with her and support the amendment – and will be a central remit of the authority. She rightly, eloquently and passionately set out all of the difficulties associated with gambling. I have done that in the past myself and do not propose to do so again, but some of the Senator’s concerns around prevention, supporting addicts, helping them to recover and so on will be dealt with by the social fund from the industry. The fund’s function will be to deal with the results of addiction.

I would like the Minister of State to raise with the Government something that has never been done properly. Indeed, it is our duty to raise it in our respective parties, which I propose to do at a parliamentary party meeting shortly. I am referring to the Department of Health needing to play a larger role and publicly accept its responsibility for dealing with addiction and its outworkings and for bringing an addict back to full life in society, as it were. This is a function of the Department, yet it has never properly budgeted for it or addressed it. My distinguished colleague, Deputy Stanton from Cork, who has been a pioneer in this regard and a strong advocate for dealing with gambling down the years, has always been of the view, and has always publicly stated, that the Department of Health needs to play a larger role in dealing with the outworkings and realities of addiction. There need to be sections within the Department with specific budgets to deal with this issue.

In a general sense, the social fund will deal with many of the important issues that have rightly been raised by supporting addicts and eliminating compulsive and problem gambling. I would like to hear the Minister of State on this, but apart from licensing and legal interventions, I assume it is implicit in the role of the authority that it will advertise prevention and do all it can proactively in an education campaign.

I wished to respond briefly to the amendments and say what I thought. This is an historic occasion and we are doing something that will be societally impactful. I spoke to a GAA guy the other day who thanked me for my input on the sports capital grant application for his club. I told him-----

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on amendments Nos. 47 to 60, Senator.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make the same point here as then.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am allowing the Senator a great deal of latitude.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I told him that we could not know who would have ended up on Skid Row and whose lives would have been devastated without the intervention of the GAA in their youth. Similarly, we will never know who would have been victims of compulsive and problem gambling were it not for what we are doing today.

I broadly support the principles of the amendments and am interested in hearing the Minister of State’s response.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support my colleague, Senator O’Reilly, whose points were on the money. I agree about the importance of what is being achieved with this Bill. It is long overdue, so I commend the Minister of State on bringing it this far.

We essentially have a gambling regulator in place now. I would not be overly prescriptive in the legislation and would instead try to allow the regulator to find her feet and identify and procure best practice. Following feedback from the regulator, a future Oireachtas can introduce further amendments if necessary. This is a new approach, one that is critical and should have been done a long ago. There is merit and logic in some of the concerns being raised about the Bill being overly prescriptive, so I ask the Minister of State to review those concerns with an open mind and to give the regulator broad discretionary powers. I fear repeating myself, but I will articulate the point about further legislation again. I suspect it will be needed, given that we regularly deal with amendments to amendments and there are always unintended consequences. Our job is to try to prevent such consequences. The Minister of State is very much of that mindset as well. I commend him and his officials on what is groundbreaking and important legislation.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Higgins. I remind Senators that we have 342 amendments to deal with in total, yet we are drifting back towards Second Stage speeches.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to stick rigidly to the amendments at hand.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will.

I make these comments with respect, especially for Senator O’Reilly, who has done a great deal to highlight this issue for years, but it is important to clarify what we are seeking in these amendments. They are not about making the Bill more prescriptive or narrower. Rather, they are meant to widen the authority’s mandate and ensure that it does not run up against claims that it is only meant to be doing X or Y. It should be able to do the kinds of work it needs to do. We leave the detail of how it does so to the authority. I have seen time and again with other regulators and authorities that, if we do not get the mandate right and give them enough scope, there is pushback and they are told that they are going beyond their remit. The authority must have clear permission to consider issues of compulsive and problem gambling and to look at new technologies. This would allow the authority to allocate resources to those issues as it sees fit.

My final point is on a small, but important, matter. As Senator O’Reilly mentioned, dealing with the impacts on those affected by gambling is important. The social impact fund is a brilliant innovation. A similar fund should have been attached to the digital levy, but this is a good aspect of the Bill. To use the smoking analogy, it is the difference between programmes to help people quit smoking, which is the social impact fund in this case, and requirements on those selling cigarettes to include warnings, which is what we are doing here in respect of licensees.There is also the piece on public awareness of the problem which is that separately, we tell people about the problems of smoking before they even start. In terms of gambling, it is about telling people it can be habit-forming before they start it and telling them it is not always just recreational and fun and games. It is about sending that signal, including to children because we know the early ways in which one can engage with gambling have an impact. It is not just dealing with those who already have problems with addiction or compulsion but seeking to prevent people entering into gambling without knowing the dangers. That is why I am looking for that extra tier.

I apologise to the Acting Chair. I will not be coming back too often but I wanted to clarify those premises.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to respond to amendments Nos. 47 to 60, inclusive.

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

I thank the Acting Chair. Amendment No. 47 involves two new insertions in section 13, namely, the appointment of a person with lived experience of problem gambling to the board of the authority and a limit on the number of members of the board who have been employed in the gambling sector.

Given the scale of its remit, membership of the authority should reflect a broad range of expertise in relation to the gambling sector. Section 15 of the Bill provides that the Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the criteria and procedures that are to apply to the selection process for members of the authority. Such criteria include that members would possess experience in matters such as gambling activities and separately, the pathology and treatment of addiction, with particular reference to gambling addiction. Both of these criteria can relate to and encompass lived experience of gambling. It is my intention that, when it comes to setting up the process to invite applications for membership of the authority, the process will reflect the need for lived experience of gambling. Additionally, the authority will have power to establish advisory committees to assist it on a range of matters relating to its functions and benefiting from the lived experience of those affected by gambling will be an essential element to these committees. Therefore, I will not be accepting the proposed amendment on this matter.

Moving to the second proposed insertion, section 14(3) of the Bill already explicitly provides for the independence of the authority when exercising its functions and this does not need to be restated.

On amendment No. 48, I cannot accept this amendment as I am satisfied that 14(1)(o) of the Bill addresses the same matter, by specifying that one of the authority’s functions will be to engage in research activities in respect of gambling activities.

As for amendment No. 49, I cannot accept it as I am satisfied that section 14(1)(c), which provides that it shall be a function of the authority to establish, maintain and administer the social impact fund, already addresses this issue. As the Senators will be aware, a key purpose of the social impact fund will be to support the provision of services for the treatment of compulsive or excessive gambling. On this basis, I believe the matters the Senators have raised are already addressed in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are minor drafting amendments to accurately reflect the functions of the authority as a result of previous amendments to the Bill in Dáil Éireann.

I cannot accept amendment No. 52 as I am satisfied that section 14(1)(c), which provides that it shall be a function of the authority to establish, maintain and administer the social impact fund, already addresses the issue. As the Senators will be aware, a key purpose of the social impact fund will be to support the provision of public education and awareness-raising measures for the purposes of highlighting the social impact of compulsive or excessive gambling. On this basis, I believe the matters the Senators have raised are already addressed in this Bill.

Regarding amendments Nos. 53 to 55, inclusive, I cannot accept the amendments as I believe the matter they seek to address is already dealt with in the Bill. Section 31 provides that the authority may undertake, commission or collaborate with research projects regarding gambling or gambling activities, including with regard to gambling addiction. In addition, the other activities specified in this section are not exhaustive and would not preclude the authority from engaging in research relating to harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling, in general keeping itself aware of emerging trends with regard to gambling, or staying aware of international best practices. I would expect nothing less from a modern regulatory body.

On amendment No. 56, I cannot accept this amendment as there are existing provisions in the Bill that will render it unnecessary. Under section 14(1)(m), one of the functions of the authority will be to be a competent authority under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. Furthermore, I will also be bringing amendments to the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 to specifically designate the authority as a competent authority for the purposes of monitoring gambling service providers’ compliance with money laundering obligations on the sector, as per section 60 of the Act.

In this context, the authority will be subject to the requirements of section 63D of the 2010 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. There is already an obligation there to carry out the risk assessment. The anti-money laundering steering committee, which the proposed amendment refers to, is not provided for in legislation currently. On this basis, I will not be accepting this amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 57, as I am satisfied that the matters raised by the Senator are addressed by section 57 of the Bill, I cannot accept the amendment. Furthermore, the matters are also addressed under the revised and updated code of practice for the governance of State bodies of 2016.

I cannot accept amendment No. 58 as it is not necessary that members of the board of the authority should need to have expertise in relation to data protection. This function would be provided by the authority’s legal and data protection teams.

I cannot accept amendment No. 59, as I am satisfied that the matters raised by the Senators are addressed by section 57 of the Bill.

On amendment No. 60, which pertains to section 17, I am aware of the concerns at the potential level of outsourcing the authority could engage in but I am of the view that sufficient oversight for this is already provided for in the Bill. The Bill provides that the chief executive of the authority will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and other committees for the authority’s activities. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the Bill includes sufficient safeguards and requirements to ensure that the authority complies with all necessary guidance and procedures, while recognising that while the authority will need to rely on external expertise, it will be obliged to adhere to all public sector procedures for all matters, including procurement.

As I have stated before, expenditure of public funds must be done in ways that are appropriate, fully transparent and accountable. 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 these accounts must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Additionally, the Bill provides that the authority is required to provide information in writing regarding its funding when requested by the Minister or the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Section 33 also provides that the Minister may request the authority to report on any matter relating to the authority’s functions, including procurement and financial matters, and the authority will be obliged to comply.

It is for these reasons that I am satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, includes sufficient oversight of the authority’s activities and will not be accepting the Senators’ amendment today.

Overall, we have to be very careful, when establishing an authority, not to make it overly prescriptive. Listing out a lot of individual lists end up not broadening but actually narrowing the remit of the authority. When you start making lists in the legislation, the courts will often interpret that as meaning what is not in the list is not part of its role. We have to be careful of trying to micromanage the operation of an authority through legislation. I do not think it is an effective way to establish an authority.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I regret that the Minister of State is not able to accept these amendments. I think they are all really constructive and they are amendments coming from people across the Houses who have looked to highlight these issues. It has taken a long time to get to the point of having a gambling regulator and it is absolutely appropriate that people would try to offer constructive proposals to make sure that it works well and is effective. I do not think that is micromanaging, and I do not think any of the amendments put forward are micromanaging. They are, in fact, trying to simply ensure that the regulator is not constrained by overprescriptive measures but is instead mandated and able to take the action that is needed. The Minister of State mentioned himself the management of State resources. When decisions are made within an authority or a regulator about how money is allocated within that regulatory authority, then having things listed in its functions makes it easier for it to justify addressing resources towards those important activities, and that is important.

Crucially, I will have to challenge the Minister of State on this point - and probably will withdraw because it is so important - and I urge him to reconsider amendment No. 49 when he comes to it in respect of letting the reason for this Bill, which is to address compulsive gambling, be centre stage in the core functions. On that public awareness piece, the prevention point is not getting addressed. Again, i is not about social impact. The issue of social impact and the problem of those who are struggling with compulsive gambling behaviour is not the same thing as a society that is trying to prevent compulsive gambling behaviour. Our amendment, which sought to eliminate problem gambling, is trying to get to the point where problem and compulsive gambling is not an issue in society.Maybe that is ambitious but I think it should be the goal.

The social impact fund will deal with the problem of compulsive gambling downstream, which is incredibly important, but we are asking that the gambling regulatory authority deal upstream with the obligation to prevent the occurrence of problem and compulsive gambling. It should use creative strategies, including public awareness strategies, that are designed to prevent this occurring. I keep labouring these other examples. We do not want children to start smoking so we tell them smoking is bad for you. We do not wait until they start smoking to deal with it. It is important to deal with it then, but there is also a wider issue of prevention. As the independent body in this area, the authority should give leadership on that, rather than simply leaving it to the licensees or the social impact fund downstream. This is different and a good approach that fits the remit of the agency.

I will press a couple of the amendments but I will hold a couple back for Report Stage. I urge the Minister of State to think about that prevention piece and how we prevent the occurrence rather than dealing with the impact. It is a slightly different frame.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the Minister of State responds, I welcome the Westmeath farming families who are guests of the Minister for enterprise, Deputy Peter Burke. They are very welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.

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

Some of the Senator's comments have left me a bit lost. Almost the entire Bill is about prevention and protection of people from gambling addiction. There are too many sections to even begin listing them, including sections on child protection. The social impact fund is not just downstream. In fact, education and awareness are specifically listed among the social impact fund's purposes. It is about those as well. To suggest this Bill is not about prevention of gambling is an extraordinary statement. I ask the Senator to reread the legislation.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be very clear, I have never suggested the Bill is not about prevention. I have said that is the purpose of the Bill and I know it is being introduced because there is a recognition of this issue. I am sorry if that is how my contribution was construed. That is exactly why we have the Bill and it is what it is trying to do. I am saying, however, it should be named in the functions of the authority, precisely because it is the ultimate goal. It is the rationale behind the Bill, so let us put the rationale behind the Bill up-front in the functions of the regulator. That is the difference.

Clearly, that is why we have the Bill and why people have campaigned for it for so long. It is about making sure the drive behind the Bill is reflected in its language, including in the language of the functions of the authority. The Minister of State and I agree on the purpose of the Bill. It is just a matter of how it is expressed in the language of the functions.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Minister of State's response but Sinn Féin wants to see a member of the board of the new Gambling Authority who has personal experience as a gambler or of harmful gambling behaviours. That is important. We do not have confidence it will happen without the amendment, which is why we want to put it in.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 25, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“(b) to monitor trends in gambling activities in the State,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 25, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(b) to take measures to reduce or eliminate compulsive and problem gambling,”.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendment No. 50:

In page 25, to delete lines 24 to 26.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendment No. 51:

In page 25, line 28, to delete “the promotion and” and substitute “inducements to gamble, the”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 25, line 38, after “activities,” to insert the following: “including the harms and dangers posed to individuals, families and communities by problem and compulsive gambling,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 26, line 5, after “activities,” to insert the following: “having particular regard to the harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 26, lines 5 after activities, to insert the following: “and emerging trends and technologies in the gambling industry,.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 26, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection: “(p) to monitor international best practice in the licensing and regulation of gambling activities,”.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 26, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(s) participating in the revision of the money laundering/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.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 26, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(b) the need to ensure that persons recommended to the Minister under subsection (2) are not affected by conflicts of interest, ”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move Amendment No. 58:

In page 27, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(e) data protection,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 28, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(c) shall not be in receipt of pecuniary benefits from gambling licence holders.”.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 60:

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.”

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments No. 61 and 62 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 31, to delete lines 36 to 39.

Amendments No. 61 and 62 are very simple. They seek to delete provisions from the Bill which would prevent the chief executive of the new regulatory authority from questioning or expressing an opinion on Government policy in the context of a joint Oireachtas committee. We believe this is an unnecessary and incredibly restrictive provision which prevents committees from doing their work in engaging in meaningful scrutiny with certain public representatives on matters of relevance and importance. There have been a number of occasions in the last 18 months where public representatives, who have significant subject matter expertise and responsibility, have had to refuse invitations to appear before Oireachtas committees on relevant matters owing to equivalent provisions in other Acts.These provisions are unjustifiably restrictive and have had the impact of gagging those who are serving the public in positions of really significant responsibility.

We should instead be empowering public representatives and those public servants charged with regulatory functions, in particular, to express their views and contribute positively to the development of good policy, practice and legislation. Again, this is not unique to this Bill. It is a practice that has been coming in recently. It is an extremely poor and undemocratic practice and is one that is diminishing accountability in a number of areas. We effectively go through all these Bills we pass, to try to ensure that we have people charged with a significant responsibility, on behalf of the State, to be the experts in an area, to fully examine, regulate and be the key oversight on that area. We then effectively gag them to the point where they are not able to answer questions from Oireachtas Members. Persons charged with and paid for the public responsibility are not able to answer questions from public representatives because they are not allowed to speak on any matter that might affect Government policy. Government is government. It is able to set policy. It has the majority. There should not be such a sensitivity that Government cannot even bear to have its policy discussed or questioned by those who may have insight into the issue and which may lead, not in a combative but constructive way, to the improvement of that policy and to making it more effective.

I am conscious this is not an innovation of the Minister of State. It is a practice that has come in recent years within a number of pieces of legislation established by new regulators. It is an extremely poor practice and we need to call it out each time it occurs. Unfortunately, and I say it again, it is not unique to the Minister of State or this Bill, but it is a practice that has been reintroduced. We have seen the impact in the decline of invitations to speak to joint oireachtas committees from persons who have something potentially significant to contribute to the debate of issues of public interest.

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

Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendments. The provision the Senator seeks to remove is now standard provision used across the Statute Book and to do so would undermine the fundamental principles underpinning the operation of Government and could compromise the ability of the authority to operate within its independence.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I disagree. I believe the functioning of these authorities and the effectiveness of the goals of these authorities is undermined by their inability to be fully accountable to public representatives. Again, it may well be that it is standard Government policy, but it is a poor Government policy and one that diminishes accountability. Ultimately, it has the cost of diminishing the quality of policymaking because it is not allowed to be questioned or discussed in any way.

Perhaps, if the Minister of State sees it as a compromise that the Government funds these bodies and they should not speak about Government policy, that is a problem in itself. These are meant to be independent bodies and they should be free to speak. They should not be gagged in that regard. The Minister of State is correct that it is standard practice but it is a poor, newly introduced standard practice that has been creeping through in the past few years and it should be called out at every instance, including this one.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 32, to delete lines 35 to 38.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments No. 63 to 67, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 36, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(c) the costs imposed on all of society by problem and compulsive gambling;”.

Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 seek to expand on the areas in which new regulatory authority may undertake, commission or collaborate on research. While the section is drafted in such a way that the authority would likely have some flexibility in deciding the areas it wishes to undertake research within, we feel that there is merit in the legislation being prescriptive on the undertaking of research in a number of important areas.

Amendment No. 63 provides that the authority would undertake research into the costs imposed on all of society by problem and compulsive gambling. We know that the prevalent and negative consequence of gambling is financial harm, but problem gambling has many other negative consequences, including poor health and well-being outcomes, the breakdown of social and family relationships with the imposition of psychological and psycho-social harms. It is important we come to a better informed understanding of the wider harm caused by gambling and gambling addiction so that we can better support those affected. The regulatory authority should play a central role in shaping this.

Amendment No. 64 provides that the authority undertake research into illegal or unregulated gambling, including gambling by children. While the majority of gambling takes place in regulated environments, we do not know if black market gambling takes place behind closed doors. Again, it is importnat that the regulatory authority engages in research so that this issue can be better addressed. An investigation published by Noteworthy earlier this summer, for example, exposed a significant network of illegal cockfighting in Ireland. People were gambling significant sums of money on a blood sport, with matches taking place in private homes, gardens and premises. A separate Noteworthy investigation in 2019 suggested that upwards of 30,000 unlicenced or improperly licenced slot gaming machines were in operation in Ireland at the time in operation, taking advantage of the more easily attained amusement machine permits. The same investigation highlighted the significant number of casinos doing business as private members clubs, skirting existing regulations. Senator McDowell recently spoke at great length about this particular issue in yesterday evening's debate.

Regarding illegal gambling by children, a 2023 study by the Institute of Public Health identified that roughly 23% of 16-year olds had gambled for money in the past year, of which 28.2% were boys and 17.9% were girls. In a separate 2024 ESRI study, two-thirds of problem gamblers reported having gambled before the age of 18, with the study demonstrating strong links between childhood experiences of gambling and problem gambling in adulthood. There are also certain anecdotal reports where our office has heard of children acting in schools as betting intermediaries. They take payment from their peers in school and place bets on their behalf to a parent or older sibling's online account.

This is seriously concerning given the ESRI's recent findings which advise that children who engage in some form of gambling are almost twice as likely to develop a gambling problem as someone who is never directly exposed. These are just a few examples of some of the illegal and unregulated gambling occurring in Ireland. We need to acknowledge that illegal and unregulated gambling occurs. We need to come to a better understanding of these forms of gambling so that we may adequately respond to the issue. It is absolutley imperative, therefore, that the regulatory authority explore this issue in its research. Amendment No. 65 seeks to expand on the provision that states the authority could undertake research into developments in information technology to ensure that the research would specifically take into account the role that emerging technologies can play in the development and sustainment of gambling addiction. While it is welcome that the authority will be in a position to undertake research into the technological developments within the gambling sector, it must do so with an eye to the potential dangers posed to gambling participants in their use. We have highlighted the extent to which gambling companies nowadays invoke technology to encourage their customers to spend more time and money on their services. While it is one thing for research to be undertaken to better understand technology like this, it is another thing entirely for us to meaningfully explore the links between this type of technology and gambling addiction.

Amendment No. 66, in a similar way to amendment No. 65, seeks to ensure that the regulatory authority would have an eye to the future in its research programme, exploring both prevailing and emerging trends in gambling activity in Ireland in its work. This could include undertaking research into gambling-like behaviour that mimics gambling in terms of both the level of risk and the potential for harm but that is not yet regulated for, perhaps investigating something like speculative cryptocurrency trading, which is a very strong conceptual overlap of gambling. If the new authority understands both current and emerging trends, it will ensure they are better equipped to respond to the challenges posed by the ever-changing regulatory landscape.

Amendment No. 67 inserts a new provision that would allow the authority to undertake research into international policy approaches to excessive, compulsive and problem gambling. A separate provision in this section suggests that the authority could undertake research to explore international regulation, but there is no reference to how this international expertise could be used to address problem gambling specifically. Given the significant risk posed to those affected by problem gambling, we should use every opportunity to try to reduce harm wherever possible. It seems like a good idea to explore how these problems are being addressed in the international context in order that we can apply the learnings to our benefit in Ireland. The Minister of State may put it to us that the section, as drafted, leaves scope for the authority to undertake research in these areas, but we are of the view that it is important to set out the regulatory intent as it relates to its research programme. We hope he will consider expanding on the existing provisions through the acceptance of this suite of amendments.

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

I cannot accept the Senator's amendments as I believe the matter they seek to address is already dealt with in the Bill. I refer to amendment No. 63. Section 31 provides that the authority "may undertake, commission or collaborate with research projects in relation to gambling or gambling activities", including in relation to gambling addiction. In addition, the other activities specified in this section are not exhaustive and would not preclude the authority from engaging in research relating to the harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling.

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 64 to 67, inclusive, as the matter they raise is already addressed in the Bill. Section 31 provides that the authority "may undertake, commission or collaborate with research projects in relation to gambling or gambling activities". The list provided in this section is not exhaustive and would not preclude the authority from engaging in research relating to any other matters it felt were necessary or appropriate. Furthermore, it is a key tenet of the authority to address unlicensed gambling and to ensure the protection of children. I am satisfied that these matters are provided for extensively throughout the Bill.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that the Minister of State will not accept these amendments. I work in the field of addiction. I set up a charitable organisation that works with families impacted by addiction, including gambling addiction, substance misuse and alcohol addiction, and I see the devastation it causes daily. I see parents and partners who come to the RISE Foundation and who know that a loved one is after remortgaging the house. In fact, the inspiration for me to set up the Rise Foundation came when I was working as a therapist in the Rutland treatment centre and I watched a young woman walk out the gates of the centre with her two small children. Her partner, her husband, was in the centre for gambling. He had remortgaged the house. The bank was just about to take the house off her. She had no clue of the absolute devastation of the financial situation she was in until she realised he was going into a treatment centre. She had hardly any money for bus fare. All she was concerned about was, when he came out of the Rutland, how she would keep him from gambling again. There was no understanding of what she and her children were going through. That woman was so devastated by her husband's gambling addiction that she could not be present for those children. Those children were going to start looking after each other because she was so anxious, upset and worried, with sleepless nights. She was worried about what would happen when he came out.

I am giving the Minister of State that example only because we know this imposes huge costs on society. In fact, organisations like the RISE Foundation and many others are picking up the pieces for those families and trying to support them as best they can. We know that the likes of the Rutland and other gambling treatment centres are helping those who are in recovery from gambling addiction, but it is absolutely devastating. Gambling addiction has the highest rate of suicide. It is absolutely soul-destroying. I am only trying to give the Minister of State the human side of this. I work on this, as I said, daily. I know this is legislation about gambling, but the reality is horrific and really awful. As I said, because it is a secret addiction, nobody really knows. When somebody is abusing alcohol or drugs or whatever, you can see the impact, but you cannot really see the impact of gambling. That is why there are huge issues around suicide. All of a sudden, they wake up one morning and everything is gone and the family is devastated. I just wanted to highlight that. I hope that down the line the Minister of State might consider these amendments and really get an understanding of the impact and how devastating it is, not only for the person who has the addiction but for the family. There is also the legacy. Those children are so worried about mammy being worried about daddy and neither of them being present that the legacy continues because that is the only way they know how to go. They will continue with some kind of behaviour that is unhealthy. I just wanted to highlight that to the Minister of State. It has a huge cost, and I hope he will reconsider these amendments down the line.

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

I am very aware of the human consequences of gambling addiction. I have highlighted that myself consistently. That is why we have drafted a 220-section Bill, one of the biggest to come through the Houses in the lifetime of the Government. I am very aware of the impact, and this legislation comes from a public health perspective. We are not accepting the amendments because we say they are not necessary as what they seek to do is covered within the legislation. As I said, the Government and I and, I think, all Senators here are coming from an understanding of the human impact of gambling on families and the silent epidemic of gambling.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator pressing the amendment?

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw it.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 36, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(c) the prevalence of illegal or unregulated gambling, including by children;”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 36, line 38, after “activities” to insert the following: “, and potential dangers posed by emerging technologies in the development and sustainment of gambling addiction”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 36, after line 38, to insert the following: “(d) prevailing and emerging trends in gambling and gambling activity;”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 36, after line 38, to insert the following: “(d) policy approaches to the reduction or elimination of excessive, compulsive and problem gambling in jurisdictions outside the State;”.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 37, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(2) The Authority shall consider existing and emerging practices in certain activities by non-licensees, which, while not constituting gambling activity, may operate in manner sufficiently similar to gambling and constitute sufficiently similar risk as to merit future identification as gambling and ultimate, appropriate regulation by the Authority.”.

Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 relate to issues of concern that the authority shall monitor and review. Amendment No. 68 inserts a clause stating that the authority shall consider existing and emerging practices in certain activities by non-licensees that may not be considered gambling activity but operate in a similar manner and should fall under appropriate regulation by the authority. In the context of this amendment, it is important to talk about cryptocurrencies. There are clear similarities between investing and gambling. Cryptocurrencies represent a particularly volatile investment option, which much more closely resembles a gambling product. The Financial Conduct Authority in the UK found that the most popular reason for consumers buying cryptocurrency was as a gamble that could make or lose money, with 68% of young traders comparing investing cryptocurrencies and other high-risk products with gambling. The Gambling Commission in the UK has considered and researched these emerging trends and found that there are correlations between problem gambling and risky investing. In its research, it found that problem gamblers are much more likely to own cryptocurrencies than are non-problem gamblers. According to its data, 43% of respondents agreed that investment products can be addictive and 51% of those who have invested in cryptocurrencies have done so because they think it is fun and thrilling. Technology facilitates the addictive nature of this activity. Mobile trading apps allow users to check their balances and make daily transactions with ease. There are elements of the gamification of investment in these platforms, causing it to further resemble gambling activity. It is this type of activity that would be captured under amendment No. 68. We have concerns that this sort of activity falls outside of the criteria listed in subsection (1) and we hope it may be considered to be included in this context.

Amendment No. 69 relates to subsection (2) of section 32. This subsection relates to issues of concern where the law or code of practice, as applied, is detrimental to the public interest or is giving rise to an increase in compulsive or excessive gambling. Our amendment would insert a new paragraph concerning issues of concern that may arise from the law, giving rise to an increase in the number of children and young people being exposed to gambling activity. One of the functions of the authority is in relation to the protection of children. There are strong provisions in this Bill as it relates to advertising, but we are concerned there may be oversights in areas with regard to emerging trends of gambling-like activity and gaming. Loot boxes, as we previously mentioned, are a typical example of this. These are in-game containers that mask their contents, which are entirely random. Players send money or in-game currency to receive one of those random items. They gamble as to what they might receive. This is giving children who play these games direct access to a gambling-like activity. If the authority is to take seriously its role in the protection of children from gambling harm, it has to give genuine consideration to these types of activities. If these games are giving children a legal mechanism to engage in what is essentially a form a gamified gambling, then this should be considered under section 32(2).

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

Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendment No. 68 as the matters it raises are already addressed in the Bill. Section 31 provides the authority may undertake, commission or collaborate with research projects related to gambling or gambling activities. The list provided in this section is not exhaustive and would not preclude the authority from engaging in research relating to any other matters it felt were necessary or appropriate. Furthermore, it is a key tenet of the authority to address unlicensed gambling and ensure the protection of children. I am satisfied that these matters are provided for extensively throughout the Bill.

I cannot accept the Senators’ amendment No. 69 as I am satisfied the Bill already addresses their amendment via section 32(2)(b). On cryptocurrency, in addition to the credit card ban, section 160(3)(a) allows the authority to specify any form of payment that may not be accepted by a licensee, and this could include cryptocurrency or something similar.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 37, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(a) is giving rise, or may give rise, to an increase in the number of children and young-people being exposed to gambling activities,”.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 70 to 73, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 38, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “34. The Authority shall be subject to section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014.”

This is a short amendment. We are not 100% sure that this does not automatically happen. It is to be absolutely certain that the authority would be subject to FOI in the interest of transparency. I would welcome the Minister of State’s view on that and whether it is a necessary amendment.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator discussing the other amendments as well? This grouping is amendments Nos. 70 to 73, inclusive.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The others are from the Civil Engagement Group.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 71 to 73, inclusive, seek three additions of persons that the authority may enter into an information-sharing agreement with in the performance of its functions.

Amendment No. 71 seeks to add the Data Protection Commission. As we referred to in amendment No. 58, gambling companies are engaging in massive amounts of data mining and profiling in regard to users of their services. It is appropriate that the authority should be facilitated to refer the mechanisms and nature of this data gathering to the Data Protection Commission in order that it might, at its discretion, investigate such activity. Similarly, given the increasingly predatory nature of gambling companies creating personalised user profiles through access to their browsing history, spending habits and behavioural information, it seems sensible that if the Data Protection Commission had concerns regarding the collection of this data, it might engage the authority in an information-sharing agreement.

Amendment No. 72 would add the Health Service Executive. By framing gambling harms through a public health lens, we can begin to understand the adverse impacts from gambling on the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities and wider society. According to the Health Research Board, the available evidence suggests that a public health approach to gambling can reduce gambling-related harms via the regulation of access to gambling through to the screening of individuals at risk and the provision of services for individuals with an identified gambling problem. The Institute of Public Health, in its inquiry into public health approaches in Northern Ireland to gambling-related harms, suggested that a data-sharing agreement should be included as a licensing requirement. While our amendment only suggests information sharing between the HSE and the authority, the suggestion from the Institute of Public Health speaks to the value that information sharing can have with regard to a public health approach to gambling harms. Further data considerations highlighted by the IPH included the sharing of data relating to hospital admissions, including psychiatric episodes, self-harm and attempted suicide, that are related to gambling. This type of information sharing could provide valuable insights to the authority.

Amendment No. 73 would include the Central Bank. AIB recently introduced voluntary block features on debit and credit card transactions, which are classified as linked to gambling. Banks can identify gambling-related activity. They can identify suspicious behaviour. There are protections that banks can provide related to gambling activity and valuable information that could be shared with the authority that could help prevent people burning through their savings.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would have thought this was covered by section 6(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act, but I just want to be clear in terms of the proposer of amendment No. 70. Part 2 of this Bill establishes the body of the gambling regulator.Section 6(1)(b) would state that any body established by statute is covered. Therefore, I am assuming if that is the case, and I am open to contradiction by the Minister in that regard, section 6(1)(b) of the Act covers us. Is the proposer of the amendment happy with that, if that is the case?

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

Regarding amendment No. 70, the Bill provides in section 64 for an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 2014. The intention is that the authority members, its staff, authorised officers, the appeals panel, appeals board, appeals officer and adjudication officer would be subject to obligations under the Freedom of Information Act concerning their respective functions insofar as the information relates to records and general administration. This means that records relating to matters to do with the administration and operation of the authority, such as expenditure, procurement, contracts, human resources and so on will be the subject of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This policy reflects the freedom of information obligation on An Garda Síochána, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Insolvency Service of Ireland. The authority will be in possession of a significant amount of information relating to applicants. In addition to personal data, these records will contain commercially sensitive information and their release would leave the companies and individuals concerned in a vulnerable situation as the information could be used to gain an unfair commercial or competitive advantage over them. That said, it is important to emphasise that, as a customer safety measure, the register of licensees will be public and accessible in order that it will be clear to see who or what is licensed to provide gambling activities and related services.

Regarding the Bill's compliance and enforcement provisions, the authority will be dealing with a considerable number of records relating to the alleged or suspected non-compliance of licensees. Releasing these under FOI would undermine the conduct of investigations and-or prosecutions by effectively obstructing the due process rights of any party concerned. The authority will have a detailed and accurate website, with information for licensees and the public. It will be obliged to submit its annual reports and annual accounts to the Minister, which will be laid before both Houses. It is believed these reporting obligations will ensure the authority will operate with adequate transparency to ensure public confidence in it. For these reasons, I will not be accepting the amendments.

With regard to amendments No. 71 to 73, inclusive, there is no requirement under the Bill for the authority to enter such an arrangement with a body specified in the amendments. However, there is nothing in the Bill to hinder the ability of the DPC to conduct investigations in types of matters raised by the Senator. Unfortunately, I cannot accept those amendments.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not quite catch what would not be included under FOI in the Minister of State's speech. I could not quite hear that section. I am not asking him to repeat himself. I can check the record.

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

The agency would have significant investigate and prosecutorial powers. Documents gathered for those purposes will not be subject to an FOI because they will be necessary in the investigation and prosecution of a licenceholder, for example. It would also undermine the tenets of any prosecution if documents seized during a prosecution or investigation were released to the public. That would be standard, for example, in any Garda or HSE investigation. The FOI is as wide as we believe it can be without hindering investigations or prosecutions where documents would need to be withheld.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 38, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(g) the Data Protection Commission,”.

I withdraw this amendment with a view to resubmitting it.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 38, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(g) the Health Service Executive,”.

I want a bit of clarity on amendment No. 72 because I am not sure what the Minister of State is saying. This amendment seeks to frame gambling harms through a public heath lens to begin to understand the adverse impacts from gambling on the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities and wider society. Will the Minister of State elaborate as to why he is not accepting this amendment?

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

Amendment No. 72 seeks to insert the Health Service Executive into section 34 as one of the listed bodies. Is that correct?

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Adding the Health Service Executive and regulating through a public health lens could be quite powerful, particularly for those who are impacted and their families. It would help them to understand the impacts of gambling from a health and well-being point of view. I genuinely believe that addiction problems have an impact on health, well-being and mental health. Is there any way the Minister of State might reconsider that with regard to having the Health Service Executive frame gambling harms through a public health lens? It would be quite powerful if it were feasible.

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

I am not in a position to accept the amendment at the moment but I will take it under further consideration.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 38, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(g) the Central Bank,”.

I withdraw this amendment with a view to resubmitting it.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 74, 120 and 145 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 75 to 96, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. Amendment No. 81 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 80. Amendment No. 95 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 94.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister of State explain something? As it stands, section 43 defines three terms to be used in Chapter 3, which establishes the national gambling exclusion register. This is an important part of the Bill, it is very worthwhile, and I think we would all support the idea that it is there. At the moment, that section defines three terms: "initial period", "relevant date" and "relevant exclusion period", and in each case refers to where that term is defined later on the Chapter. The "initial period" is defined in section 44(4)(b). The "relevant date" is defined in section 44(5)(b) and "relevant exclusion period" is defined in section 46. I do not have any difficulty with any of the definitions but it seems amendment No. 75 creates a new section 43, which will replace the existing section 43 and substitute simply the definition of "relevant date". I do not understand why, if that is necessary with regard to the definition of "relevant date" that is provided in section 44(5)(b), which is exactly what the proposed amendment would refer to, why there is not also a need to refer to the definitions in 44(4) and section 46 for the definitions of "initial period" and "relevant exclusion period"? If it is good enough to rely on the definition of "relevant date" that exists in Chapter 3, it is good enough to rely on the other ones. A stand-alone section 43 simply defining "relevant date" by reference to another section in that Chapter appears superfluous. If it is not superfluous, why would we drop the other definitions?

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

It is a very good question and the Senator is correct. We are deleting section 43 and re-inserting the definition of "relevant date", which is referred to throughout the Bill. As the Senator correctly pointed out, the other definitions are also so I will get further clarity for him on that.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 43, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(4) The Authority may cause licensees, who compile, or seek to compile through third party service providers, data profiles the purposes of inviting or retaining participants and prospective participants, to erase all tracked data in relation to a participant if so requested. ”.

Can I speak to the amendment?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was already discussed with amendment No. 75.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies, can I speak about it now?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly, yes, it that is okay.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will keep it short. This section sets out the terms of operation of the national gambling exclusion register. It is a really welcome provision in the legislation and our primary concern about the operation of the register is that it places essentially all of the obligation on a participant to keep themselves safe from harm. This suite of amendments tries to address this imbalance and place certain obligations on licensees to safeguard participants who are at risk of harm. Amendment No. 79 inserts a new provision that would allow the gambling authority to cause licensees to delete data profiles of participants who wish to have their data erased. As we have highlighted on a number of occasions throughout the debate, gambling companies nowadays gather, store and analyse vast tracts of data to personalise the services they offer with the intention of incentivising time and money spent with their services. While in many cases participants knowingly or unknowingly agree to their data being used in this way, it is absolutely imperative that there is a way for this data to be permanently deleted. This is especially true in circumstances where a person is seeking to be included on the exclusion register, trying to put some space between themselves and his or her gambling habit for whatever reason. We need to do everything in our power to try to lift people out of addiction and support those in recovery. If gambling companies are in a position where they can hold onto a person's data and manipulate it to try to entice him or her to return to previous gambling patterns, it would completely undermine the success of the exclusion register.

I made a mistake and should also have spoken to amendments No. 81, 89 and 95. I will be as brief as I possibly can. Would it be possible?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise. Like amendment No. 79, amendment No. 81 seeks to provide participants with the ability to request, when making an application, to be added to the exclusion register so that they would be excluded from data profiling and personalised advertising for the duration of time on which they remain on the register. The intention is much the same as amendment No. 79. I will not repeat it at length other than saying it is hugely important for us to empower those who are at some level asking for support to manage a habit, compulsion or addiction to put distance between themselves and this habit so they can make the change they wish to make for their own lives.

Whereas amendments Nos. 79 and 81 relate to the ability of a person to request his or her stored data be deleted by a licensee, amendment No. 89 places an obligation on the licensee not to collect or collate personal data on the relevant person for the duration of him or her being included on the exclusion register. Unfortunately, there is a drafting error in the amendment so we will withdraw the amendment on this Stage with the right to return to the issue on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 95 to section 47 provides for the removal of a person from the exclusion register. It seeks to ensure a person could only be excluded from the register at the conclusion of the specified period if he or she provided explicit consent. It is important we provide people with the opportunity to opt-out of being removed from the register at the conclusion of the specified period because there are likely to be many cases where being on the register is working well for people in terms of managing their gambling. Removing someone from the register without warning or without providing him or her the opportunity to extend their time on the register could have the effect of luring an individual back into gambling habits he or she felt were previously unhealthy. Like the others in this suite of amendments, the spirit of this proposed insertion is to support individuals who have decided to put some distance between themselves and their gambling for whatever reason and to keep this distance if they choose to do so. We believe they are sensible amendments and practical and rooted in compassion and hope the Minister of State will consider accepting them. I thank the Acting Chair.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to address an issue raised by Senator Black because amendment No. 79 would appear, from my reading of it, to give the gambling authority the power to say to a bookie or a company offering a gambling product that it cannot retain personal information that essentially can be used for marketing purposes. That seems to be eminently sensible. I favour generally that the gambling authority would have as many powers as possible so it can do whatever it needs to.

My question relates to section 152, which essentially prohibits the offering of an inducement to gamble, and if that covers the scenario set out by Senator Black in her amendment No. 79, which would insert a new section 44 (4). Section 152 (1) deals with inducements, which are described as "direct[ly] or indirect[ly], to encourage participation in gambling" and section 152(2) states a licensee "may not offer a person or specific group of persons an inducement.". My colleague Senator McGahon's amendment No. 266 to section 152 specifically addresses this issue. I will come to section 152 later because I think it is slightly problematic insofar as it is overly prescriptive but in terms of inducements, is there a difference between that and the notion a gambling company could manufacture a situation where marketing is targeted at someone who has an issue? If there is a difference it is very much worth considering amendment No. 79 and what Senator Black said. If the Minister of State feels it is covered by section 152, that is fine but it is something that should be considered.

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

With regard to inducements, the Bill is drafted in such a way that they cannot be targeted. We had an alternative position at the start when we were drafting this Bill of trying to cover everything, which we could not do. It became impossible so we flipped to a position where an inducement cannot be offered unless it can be offered to everybody and that people can walk in off the street and get whatever the case may be. It stops any targeting of inducements whatsoever but allows companies to continue to provide general offers to the public because that is a natural part of competition. It does not prevent somebody who has a problem taking advantage of an offer but that offer has to be made available to everybody.

Regarding amendment No. 79, in drafting this Bill I consulted with the Data Protection Commission and the commission did not specify a need for such a provision to be included. On that basis, I am not satisfied that such a provision is necessary.

With regard to amendments Nos. 80, and 82 to 86, inclusive, consistent with the policy intention I outlined in respect of amendment No. 77, amendment No. 80 provides that a person shall be placed on the register for an indefinite period and an exclusion will exclude them from gambling with all remote gambling licensees.

Amendment No. 82 removes a reference from section 44(5)(d) as to which individual or specific gambling activities a person will be excluded from, as now, a person on the register will be excluded from participating in all gambling activities provided by remote means.

Amendment No. 83 removes the need to include specific licensees’ data on the register and persons will be excluded from gambling with all licensees the register applies to while amendment No. 84 amends section 44(6) to provide for an obligation on the authority to notify licensees of new persons entered on the register while amendment No. 85 is a technical amendment to section 44(7) to remove a duplicate word.

I cannot accept the Senator's amendment No. 81 - but it is important to clarify this - as section 45(1)(c) provides that a licensee shall not communicate with a person on the national gambling exclusion register and any licensee that does so shall be guilty of an offence and subject to up to five years' imprisonment, or a fine, or to both.

Amendments No. 87 and 88 clarify that licensees that provide gambling activities by remote means shall not allow a person to the register to participate in gambling activities with that licensee once that person is on the register.I cannot accept amendment No. 89 as section 45(1)(c) of the Bill provides that a licensee shall not communicate with a person on the national gambling exclusion register and any licensee that does so shall be guilty of an offence and subject to up to five years imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Licensees will need to collect and maintain data on those, excluding via the register for the purposes of fulfilling their obligations under the Bill.

Amendments Nos 89 to 94, inclusive, are consequential amendments to section 45 to reflect the updated policy that a person on the register shall be excluded from all gambling activities and from all licensees who provide gambling by remote means.

Amendment No. 94 provides that a person who has applied to be entered on the national gambling exclusion register must remain on the register for a period of at least six months from the date of registration. If they wish to be removed, they must do so in writing to the authority. On receipt of such an application, the authority must satisfy itself of the applicant’s identity, remove the applicant from the register as soon as is practicable, and inform the person of their removal.

I cannot accept amendment No. 95 as I will be bringing a range of amendments to the provisions relating to the operation of the national gambling exclusion register which have the same effect as the Senators have proposed.

Amendment No. 96 inserts a new section into the Bill providing that the authority shall review the operation of the register three years after its establishment, and every three years thereafter. It must submit a report with any recommendations to the Minister, as the authority feels are necessary to improve the operation of the register.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I ask the Minister of State one very simple question with regard to amendment No. 95? I did not understand what he said. Is he saying he will be bringing in amendments that are more or less the same as this amendment? Did I hear him correctly?

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

Yes. I will be bringing in a range of amendments to the provisions relating to the operation of the national gambling exclusion register which have the same effect as the Senator's amendment.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw amendment No. 79.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 81 cannot be moved.

Government amendment No. 83:

Government amendment No. 83: In page 43, to delete lines 33 to 35 and substitute the following:

“(f) where the person is an account-holder with one or more than one licensee of a Business to Consumer gambling licence, details of each account held with each such licensee;”.

Government amendment No. 84:

Government amendment No 84:

In page 43, lines 38 to 40, to delete all words from and including “notify” in line 38 down to and including “notified” in line 40 and substitute the following: “notify the licensee or licensees referred to in subsection (5)(f) in writing of that fact and, subject to subsection (7) and section 17 of the Act of 2010, each licensee so notified”.

Government amendment No. 86:

Government amendment No. 86:

In page 44, lines 5 to 8, to delete all words from and including “shall” in line 5 down to and including line 8 and substitute “shall apply in respect of each gambling account the person has with the licensee.”.

Government amendment No. 88:

Government amendment No. 88:

In page 45, to delete lines 3 and 4 and substitute the following:

“(a) provide, to the person, a relevant gambling activity by remote means,”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 45, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(b) collect, collate personal data in respect of the person,”.

Government amendment No. 90:

Government amendment No. 90:

In page 45, line 6, to delete “or activities”.

Government amendment No. 91:

Government amendment No. 91:

In page 45, lines 8 and 9, to delete “ or activities to which the exclusion applies in accordance with subsection (5)(d) of that section”.

Government amendment No. 92:

Government amendment No. 92:

In page 45, line 13, to delete “which affects the licensee”.

Government amendment No. 93:

Government amendment No. 93:

In page 45, line 25, to delete “which affects the licensee”.

Government amendment No. 94:

Government amendment No. 94:

In page 46, lines 4 to 18, to delete all words from and including “An” in line 4 down to and including line 18 and substitute the following:

“A person may, after the expiration of a period of 6 months from the relevant date, notify the Authority in writing that he or she wishes the Authority to remove the entry relating to him or her from the National Gambling Exclusion Register.

(2) The Authority shall, on receipt of a notification under subsection (1) and having satisfied itself as to the identity of the person making the notification, remove the entry relating to that person from the National Gambling Exclusion Register and as soon as practicable after such removal give notice in writing of that fact to the person concerned.”.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 95 cannot be moved.

Government amendment No. 96:

Government amendment No. 96:

In page 46, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“Review of operation of National Gambling Exclusion Register

49. The Authority shall, within a period of 3 years from the date of the establishment of the National Gambling Exclusion Register and in each 3 year period thereafter—

(a) review the operation of the Register, including the number of persons who have excluded themselves from participating in relevant gambling activities by remote means through registration on the Register,

(b) submit a report in writing to the Minister on the outcome of a review as soon as practicable after the completion of the review, and

(c) make such recommendations in the report as it thinks appropriate to improve such operation and participation.”.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are at the end of a grouping of some 21 amendments, Nos. 75 to 96, inclusive. It is the eleventh grouping of 28 in the list we have. The groupings are obviously hugely helpful to allow us to move on. However, given that mistakes were made today by people who did not realise where subsequent amendments were part of a group, if it would make more sense for the groups to be numbered, at least, as it is just a bullet list. This is not specific to the Bill but more a procedural issue. Is there a reason it cannot be done? I wonder if it would make sense because -----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The list was circulated. Is the Senator saying it should be numbered?

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no problem with the list but it is bullet points. The groups are not identiable one from the other except by the name. If one could refer to group A, B or C or group 9 or whatever it is it would be easier because it is quite difficult to navigate.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can consider that for future legislation.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos 97 to 100, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 46, after line 37, to insert the following:

“(i) communicating the risks and potential harms caused by gambling, including to children and young people,”.

Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Bill deals with the creation of a social impact fund, another extremely welcome provision in this legislation, which will see certain portions of revenues of licence holders investing in individuals and communities negatively impacted by gambling. Amendment No. 97 proposes that the social impact fund would be utilised to provide public education and awareness-raising measures that would focus on communicating the risks and potential harms caused by gambling, including to children and young people. The amendment is informed by the principle of early intervention which in this case is to prevent the onset of excessive and compulsive gambling in the first instance before it becomes a problem for people.

The existing provisions of this section are too heavily focused on addressing excessive and compulsive gambling without acknowledging how participants arrive at this point and the full extent of the harms caused. Gambling is a risky behaviour. While people regularly take risks in their lives it is important that they are informed of the associated risks and harms before they engage in the behaviour in the first place. It is not sufficient for the regulator to fund public awareness to communicate that too much gambling has social consequences. Instead, we propose that they would, in addition to the other public awareness initiatives, provide information to the public about the risks and potential harms of all types of gambling - excessive, compulsive or otherwise – including a specific mandate to communicate this to children and young people.

As we have outlined on a number of occasions throughout the debate, the link of being exposed to gambling at a young age and developing a problem gambling habit is really significant and we need to do everything in our power to prevent these links from materialising. Amendment No. 98 separately seeks to expand on an existing provision in the section relating to the provision of services to excessive and compulsive gamblers and other affected persons. This is a welcome provision but we would like to see it expanded slightly to include reference to the support services that could be offered to affected communities. Data released by the Health Research Board in 2022 demonstrated that problem gambling bears a strong relationship to living in a deprived area and being unemployed. According to the report, the profile of at-risk or problem gamblers tends to be men aged 25 to 35 living in a deprived area who are unemployed and experience difficulties with substance misuse or abuse. This will not be surprising to hear in the context of this debate, with many of our colleagues in the House referring last evening to the prevalence of casinos, amusement arcades and bookkeepers in working-class communities versus wealthy ones. In the UK, research from the University of Liverpool and the National Centre for Social Research, published in 2021, demonstrated that not only are people from deprived areas more regularly exposed to gambling and more likely to develop problem gambling habits, they are also more likely to place risky long-odds bets. This means deprived communities are more likely to be most acutely affected by the harms associated with problem gambling.

With this data in mind, it seems worthwhile that we would invest some of the social impact fund into deprived communities to try to prevent problem gambling in the first place and to alleviate some of the harms posed at a community level, in addition to the harms to individuals. That would be achieved by this amendment.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Head 113 of the general scheme of the Bill provided that the authority shall make certain provisions by way of statutory instruments, but the Bill does not include the same level of detail in section 52. We are seeking to introduce that level of detail back into the Bill at this stage. It would bring the legislation in line with the commitment given that the social impact fund would reflect the fund currently operating in New Zealand. I welcome the Minister of State's response in this regard.

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

I cannot accept amendment No. 97 as I am satisfied that sections 50 (1) (a) and 50 (1) (b) of the Bill already address this issue. As the Senators are aware, a key purpose of the social impact fund will be to support the provision of public education and awareness-raising measures for the purposes of highlighting the social impact of compulsive or excessive gambling. I fully expect that the issues raised by the Senators will be highlighted by the new gambling regulatory authority. There is nothing to stop it from doing so. The issues mentioned are a key element of any awareness campaign. For what reason I do not know, the Senators are putting a very narrow interpretation on awareness and education. This will not only happen downstream, as I mentioned earlier. It absolutely will be about warning people of the dangers of getting into gambling in the first place.

I cannot accept amendment No. 98 as I am satisfied that section 50 of the Bill sufficiently addresses the issues the Senators have raised.

My amendment No. 99 inserts a new section into the Bill to provide for the possible refund of moneys transferred into the social impact fund from a licensee that transferred a balance on an account that had not been used for 13 months and where the licensee, despite best efforts, could not make a refund to the account holder.

Amendment No. 100 proposes to insert a new subsection into section 52 setting out various criteria the Minister must consider when determining the level of contribution to the social impact fund by licensees. I cannot accept this amendment. As per section 52, the social impact fund shall be funded by annual contributions from licensees, except for charitable or philanthropic licensees. Contributions will be determined by the authority in accordance with regulations made by the Minister. The section as drafted provides for the discretion of the authority in determining the needs of operating the social impact fund, the level of contributions required to operate the fund and in financing those activities and projects on an annual or multi-annual basis. Requiring the authority to adhere to a defined set of criteria may result in the fund either being under- or over-funded on an annual basis, as has been the case with similar regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions.

I recognise the constructive intention behind the proposed amendment and the intent to bring certainty in calculating the level of contribution to the fund from smaller licensees. I assure the Senators that the Bill has been drafted to ensure that contributions will be calculated and scaled accordingly. In preparing the Bill, I have been clear that smaller operators should not be treated in the same manner as larger operators. The Bill reflects this. I reiterate that the authority will be best placed to determine the levels of contributions required to the fund. It already has the ability to scale and determine those contributions accordingly, based on the licensees in question. While I recognise that this was not the intention, the Senators' amendment would have significant implications and consequences for the operation of the fund. On this basis I cannot accept the amendment.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 47, line 7, after "persons" to insert "and communities".

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 48, between lines 25 and 26, 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.".

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 101 to 106, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

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

Given the alternative debt resolution procedures that have been introduced, including, for example, personal insolvency arrangements, we are widening the information required from licence applicants to include any other arrangements or compositions with creditors. That is provided for in amendment No. 101. On advice from the Office of the Attorney General, it was considered that the provision as initially drafted was too broad. Amendments Nos. 102 to 104, inclusive, and amendment No. 106 narrow its scope and application accordingly.

I cannot accept amendment No. 105 as I am satisfied that section 50 of the Bill sufficiently addresses the issues the Senators have raised.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 57 sets out the eligibility criteria for an individual to become a member of a relevant office or an adjudication officer. Our amendment No. 105 seeks to expand on the provision that states that an individual who enters employment with a licensee or an organisation that represents a licensee is ineligible for appointment. The amendment would make explicit that an individual who enters employment with an organisation that represents the interests of licensees generally, as opposed to the interests of an individual licensee, will also be ineligible for appointment. It is a subtle and potentially slightly semantic differentiation but we would welcome any clarification the Minister of State might be able to offer with respect to the types of organisation covered by this provision.

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

As I said, we are satisfied that section 50 sufficiently addresses the issues raised by the Senator in this amendment. The issue is already covered.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does Senator Ruane propose to proceed with her amendment No. 105?

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not move it.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next is amendment No. 107, in the name of Senator McDowell.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move it.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Senator have permission from Senator McDowell?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Keogan is moving it.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 54, after line 30, to insert the following:

"PART 4

AMUSEMENT HALLS AND CASINOS

Application of this Part

65. (1) This section shall not have effect in any area unless there is for the time being in force a resolution under subsection (2) adopting it for that area.

(2) A local authority may by resolution adopt this section in respect of the whole or a specified part of its administrative area and may by resolution rescind such adoption.

(3) A resolution shall not have effect unless not less than one month's notice of the intention to propose it has been given in writing to every member of the local authority and has been published by advertisement in at least two newspapers circulating in the area to which the proposal relates.

(4) A local authority on passing a resolution shall cause notice of the fact to be published in at least two newspapers circulating in the area to which the resolution relates and shall as soon as may be send a copy of the resolution to the Minister.

(5) Evidence of the passing of a resolution may be given by the production of a copy of a newspaper containing the notice or by the production of a certificate to that effect purporting to be under the seal of the local authority.".

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 54, after line 30, to insert the following: "Control by local authorities of amusement halls and casinos

66. (1) Gambling in an amusement hall shall be unlawful unless the amusement hall is situated in an area a resolution has been adopted by a local authority in accordance with section 65.

(2) No licence shall be granted by the authority in respect of an amusement hall where gambling would be unlawful by reason of subsection (1).

(3) In this section, "amusement hall" means any premises including any casino in which members of the public are permitted to gamble in person by the use of any machine or machines which are operated by means of the insertion or use of any currency (coin or note) or token or any card (including credit cards, debit cards, or charge card, or by use of any terminal (including fixed odds betting terminals) for a gambling process determined there or elsewhere.".

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 109:

In page 54, after line 30, to insert the following: "Exemption for National Lottery

67. Nothing in this Part prohibits or affects the activities of the National Lottery.".

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 110 to 112, inclusive, 117, 123, 124, 229 to 232, inclusive, 260, 261, 336 and 341 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

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

These are all technical amendments. I will not refer to them unless anybody seeks clarification.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 113 to 115, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 113:

In page 56, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: "(4)(a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring any authorisation or entitlement on a person licensed under this Act to provide a gambling activity on the National Lottery, held on behalf of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, under the National Lottery Act 2013, unless expressly authorised to do so in accordance with Part 7 of that Act.

(b) It shall be an offence for a person licensed under this Act, to provide a gambling activity on the National Lottery, held on behalf of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, under the National Lottery Act 2013.".

These amendments are in some ways a little incongruous because the national lottery is not to be regulated by the proposed gambling regulator under this legislation. I have a Private Members' Bill, the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, that is specifically targeted at those gambling organisations that essentially piggyback on the existing national lottery infrastructure to make a profit for themselves. We know the national lottery is regulated but, more important, although it is regulated it also gives a social return, or, as I call it, a social dividend, to the State in a number of ways. First, it contributes greatly to the good causes fund, administered by the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Second, it drives footfall to its retailers. Everybody will know that national lottery products are available for sale throughout the country in shops, mostly small shops but also large shops. When people go into a shop to buy a national lottery product, they also buy a pint of milk, loaf of bread or other product. The driving of this footfall in small businesses across the country represents an important social dividend that the national lottery also gives us. Third, the national lottery gives commission to the retailers when they sell a prizewinning ticket on their premises. Therefore, the benefit of the national lottery to us as a country, community, economy and society is enormous. That there is so much money coming back to Ireland from the national lottery is not a point of small importance.

There are bookmakers and gambling outlets that use the lotto, for example, to offer a less expensive gambling product within their premises. For example, one can bet that a certain number of numbers will come out in the lottery with a smaller stake. The winnings are lower. We know that every penny spent in those circumstances is diverted from the national lottery, the good causes fund, small businesses around the country and the commission that might be paid to those small businesses. The problem is that the companies responsible for these products are singularly profit-driven organisations. I do not have a problem with that, in that anybody is entitled to set up a business and make a profit, but the exceptional thing about this practice is that the organisations are using what is essentially expensive infrastructure put in place by the national lottery, including all the checks and balances that come with it, the actual draw and the airtime it takes. People might have issues with what I am saying, which is fine, but the reality is that the national lottery expends a certain amount of money every year putting in place the lotto infrastructure and the safeguards that come with it. It also deals with its own regulation. For example, for many years with the national lottery, it has not been possible to bet after 10 p.m. Hopefully, this legislation will make this the case for all gambling products. With the national lottery, you cannot even check your numbers after 10 p.m, and you cannot spend more than €90 per day. There are many restrictions already in place affecting people who buy national lottery products. Those restrictions do not currently apply, although they will, to the commercial outfits that use the national lottery to make profits for themselves and divert potential expenditure on the national lottery from good causes and the social dividend to which I have referred. My Bill seeks to outlaw this practice. That makes perfect sense and it would not particularly disadvantage anyone. There are people who would prefer not to do as I propose, which is fine, but from a simple public-policy perspective and in recognition of the benefit of the national lottery, it makes perfect sense.

Amendment No. 113 essentially proposes to insert into section 65 a new subsection (4)(a), which would state:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring any authorisation or entitlement on a person licensed under this Act to provide a gambling activity on the National Lottery, held on behalf of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, under the National Lottery Act 2013, unless expressly authorised to do so in accordance with Part 7 of that Act.

The amendment would also make it an offence for a person to do that. That is essentially the import of my Bill, which has already passed through Committee Stage in this House and received almost unanimous support in that regard.

Amendment No. 114 is a technical amendment that essentially restructures section 65 to deal with the inserted subsection.

Amendment No. 115 proposes to insert a new section 66 amending the National Lottery Act. It proposes what is in the other amendments by different means. The wording of this amendment is largely lifted from my Private Members' Bill, which I fear may not become law before the election comes.

I am proposing two alternative mechanisms for doing the same thing, one of which is contained in amendments Nos. 113 and 114 and the other of which is in amendment No. 115. I recognise that they are mutually exclusive de facto. There is certainly no need to pass both proposals. What I propose was recognised by the last Minister for public expenditure as good public policy. In fact, he may have written directly to the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, on this issue, proposing that such an instrument be put in place. I understand the current Minister sees the benefit of this.

My measure is slightly incongruous because I am inserting it into a Bill that does not specifically cover the regulation of the national lottery, but it covers the regulation of the very bodies perpetrating what I consider to be an offence. It is not a criminal offence but it subtracts from the benefit of the national lottery. The bodies piggybacking on national lottery infrastructure are the ones that would be subject to regulation by the new regulator created by this legislation. It makes sense for what I propose to be in the Bill and it would be in order. I hope the Minister of State will take on board my remarks. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114, which would have to travel together, represent the easiest way to implement what I am talking about. If implemented, it would be good for Ireland and the national lottery. The sports capital grants announced this week to the benefit of communities and small sports clubs and organisations around the country, including local ones that benefit from volunteers, was funded through national lottery infrastructure and the good causes fund that comes from lotto tickets, scratch cards and all the rest. We have no business allowing commercial enterprises to subtract from that fund and take away from community organisations and small clubs all over the country. We should be doing the opposite, and that is what these amendments seek to do. I hope the Minister of State will support them.

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

The purpose of the Senator's amendments is effectively to ban betting on the national lottery. I certainly appreciate the Senator's position that this betting potentially takes away from the money distributed to good causes supported by the lottery. We cannot say with certainty that prohibiting betting or similar activities with respect to the national lottery would mean those who bet on it would automatically switch to purchasing national lottery products instead.I accept there is anecdotal evidence to that effect. The Senator will also know that this Bill is explicit in that it does not apply to the operation of the national lottery and the operation of the national lottery is subject to the provisions of the National Lottery Act 2013, which is the responsibility of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform and is already regulated by its own dedicated regulator, the regulator of the national lottery. It does not fall under my remit.

I appreciate the Senator's concerns but the matters the Senator raised are for the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform and the regulator of the national lottery to consider. I certainly do not have Government approval to put it into this Bill. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the Senator's amendment.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand where the Minister of State is coming from. However, although this Bill comes under his remit, and I acknowledge the enormous volume of work that he has done on it as well as within the Department to bring it here, it affects every Department and its success affects every Department. I understand what he said. He started out by saying that we cannot guarantee that the money that would be saved through this mechanism would necessarily go back to the national lottery. That is true. However, since I published my Private Members Bill I have received various estimates from the national lottery and also from betting companies that have approached me in opposition to the Bill and presented a range of studies that express various different figures as to how much it would benefit or otherwise the national lottery. The most pessimistic of those estimates still range into nine figures in terms of the value of this amendment. We are talking about millions and millions of euro that are not going into the good causes fund, that could otherwise go in. The Minister of State will excuse me if I am unconcerned about whether it is within his remit. He may well need Government approval and that is fine. There will be a Cabinet meeting between the time we leave this Chamber today and the time that this Bill finishes its passage through this House. Will the Minister of State please ask for that Government approval?

My understanding always was that there was not a policy difficulty within the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform on this. It makes sense on every level. The only people who are opposed to it are betting companies. They are the only ones opposed to it because it benefits the national lottery and much more importantly than that, it benefits every community, town, village, small business that sells lottery tickets and every community organisation that received funding from the good causes fund. There is a massively broad benefit across the spectrum for people in respect of these amendments. The only people who lose out are corporate interests that are already massively profitable within this jurisdiction.

I will resubmit the amendments on Report Stage. I place no blame at the Minister of State's door on this but I hope he will speak to his ministerial colleague and seek approval for this amendment because it is something that is already on the Order Paper of this House. It will not progress, realistically, before the election. However, this is an opportunity to actually achieve something in addition to this. While I said that it was incongruous that it is within this Bill, it is incongruous because the national lottery is not regulated. However, the very bodies affected by these amendments are also those that all of us have been talking about every time we have had a debate on this Bill. They are the bodies that will be regulated by the new regulator. This is a very clear statement of intent regarding how we are going to allow them to use or abuse what is de facto public infrastructure paid for by taxpayers, albeit licensed to a private company but with a massive social dividend to this country. It would be a real shame to let this opportunity slip by. I hope the Minister of State will be able to give me a more positive answer on Report Stage.

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

My understanding is that the general election will not be called for another five months so-----

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If he is willing to put my Bill through, we will get it done.

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

There will be plenty of time to get the Bill through.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that an expression of support for the Bill?

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

I can certainly bring it to the attention of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform but it does not come under the Department of Justice. That has been made clear to me by the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform on several occasions. There is where it resides. I can bring it to the attention of the Minister but I cannot undertake to seek Government approval.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one more question, as to whether these three specific amendments were brought to the attention of the Department and whether it has considered them or whether that is yet to happen.

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

I do not have an answer for that. I will inquire.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 114:

In page 56, line 3, to delete “or (3)” and substitute “, (3) or (4)”.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 115:

In page 56, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Amendment of the National Lottery Act 2013

66. The national lottery Act 2013 is amended as follows:

(a) In section 2 by the insertion of the following definitions:

“ ‘bet’ shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 1 of the Betting Act 1931;

‘betting offer’ means a bet offered by a bookmaker;

‘bookmaker’, for the purposes of section 46 of the National Lottery Act 2013, means a person, who in the course of business, takes bets, sets odds

and undertakes to pay out on winning bets, and includes—

(i) a licensed remote betting intermediary,

(ii) a remote betting intermediary,

(iii) a licensed remote bookmaker, and

(iv) a remote bookmaker,

and each term in this definition has the meaning given to it by section 1 of the Betting Act 1931, as inserted by section 2 of the Betting (Amendment) Act 2015;”.

(b) in section 46 by the substitution of the following for subsection (1):

“(1) A person, other than the Minister, the Regulator, the operator or a licensee, or a person authorised to do so by any of them, shall not, for

the purposes of a betting offer—

(a) make use of the National Lottery, or

(b) make use of—

(i) the name ‘Irish National Lottery’, its equivalent in the Irish language, or any equivalent thereof;

(ii) the name ‘National Lottery’, ‘An Crannchur Náisiúnta’, or any equivalent thereof; or

(iii) any name so closely resembling either of those names in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) as to be reasonably capable of leading to the belief that any of those names or equivalents is being referred to.”,

and

(c) in section 46 by the substitution of the following for subsection (3)—

“(3) (a) It shall be an offence to contravene subsection (1)—

(b) Where a contravention of subsection (1) has been committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to, any neglect on the part of the person being a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, that person as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished as if he or she were guilty of the first-mentioned offence.

(c) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, paragraph (b) shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her functions of management as if he or she were a director or manager of the body corporate.

(d) A person or body corporate that contravenes subsection (1) is liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a class A fine, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €100,000.

(e) In considering what the appropriate penalty under paragraph (d) in any case, a court shall have regard to the provisions of section 14 of the Fines Act 2010.”.”.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 116:

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.”.

The Minister of State will be aware that on behalf of the Labour Party I introduced a Bill in this House to ban gambling advertising 24-7. We have had a number of conversations last night and indeed today about the harms of gambling advertisement. Last night there was a lot of commentary on the normalisation of sport and gambling. The expertise employed by gambling companies is very relevant throughout all those advertisements. People watch TV or watch the advertisements and see those young people in the main coming home from a social night out and everything seems to be okay, they are gambling and everything as I said is okay, and they are heading home. The opposite is obviously the case for at least one in 30 people or 130,000 people in the country. Those advertisements deliberately target the most vulnerable in our society. As I said last night, during Covid-19 I received many calls from people who were trying to explain to their children, some as young as five and six, what gambling was and what the advertising actually meant. Indeed Senator Lombard commented last night that he had to explain the same to his own eight-year-old child.

I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has introduced a watershed through this Bill. I thank him for his commitment to this Bill because it will make a difference to many people. We need to follow the example of Belgium and the Netherlands and ban gambling advertising 24-7. We need to give those with an addiction a break. If we are going to stop at 9 p.m., that is prime time television for families and in particular for those who are sitting down after a hard day's work, their children are probably gone to bed and they want to enjoy television. Unfortunately, that is the time then when they are struck by one gambling advertisement after another. Our television advertising schedules, particularly from that time, are absolutely destroyed with gambling advertisements. We in the Labour Party feel, and we have spoken to many people about this, that we need to ban gambling advertising once and for all, to give those with the addiction a break and to ensure that we are not allowing those who may have an addiction in the future to be inspired, for want of a better word, by what the gambling companies have creatively projected in producing these advertisements.

We talked about lived experience earlier on in contributions and I have been told it is 9 p.m. when couples and indeed individuals are sitting down. They are struck then by gambling advertisements and it entices those who have an addiction, are going through addiction or coming out of an addiction, to gamble again. I am sure the Minister of State is aware of that. I know they have contacted him. They contacted me and other Members of this House. That is the time of night when they feel under most threat of relapsing into addiction. Yet, we are saying now that it is okay at 9 p.m. to advertise gambling. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the 9 p.m. watershed. I welcome the fact that there is a watershed in the first place. Now we need to look at the benefit of banning gambling advertising 24-7 for the vulnerable people who need it most.

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

The Senator's amendment speaks to some of the core issues addressed by the Bill and to the debate concerning the regulation of gambling advertising. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce an absolute prohibition on advertising gambling and provides for the offences for a breach of that prohibition. Unfortunately, I cannot accept it. As Senators will be aware, a key focus of the Bill is to protect children and vulnerable people from the harms associated with gambling. The Bill includes restrictions on gambling advertising and on sponsorship by gambling service providers.These restrictions include a watershed prohibiting the broadcast of gambling advertising on television, radio and audiovisual media services as recommended by the all-party Oireachtas committee, and a wide-ranging power to allow the authority to prescribe times, places and events where gambling advertising can be broadcast, displayed or published, as well as the volume, frequency and duration of advertisements. This power will also allow the the authority to address gambling, advertising online and on traditional media such as television, radio, websites, apps, in print in publications and outdoor advertising such as billboards.

In addition, the Bill contains extensive measures to regulate gambling advertising on on-demand services, on social media or video-sharing services and via other forms of electronic communications such as telephone texts, messages or via email.

On Report Stage in the Dáil I brought amendments to make it an enforceable obligation on licensees to comply with the advertising provisions in the Bill and that any breach of an obligation may be addressed by the authority by way of administrative sanction or, if the breach is of a significant nature, by criminal prosecution if necessary. Such administrative sanctions could potentially include a significant financial penalty, the suspension, revocation of or imposition of a condition on the licensee's gambling licence and on any other licences held by the licensee.

In addition to the amendments I intend to bring to exempt charitable philanthropic licensees from the advertising restrictions in the Bill, I also intend to introduce further restrictions to ensure that no commercial operators can take advantage of these exemptions.

I do not think that any of the Senators would disagree that it would be disproportionate and time-consuming to seek a prosecution as provided for in their amendment and potentially imprisoning someone for failure to include any information required in an advertisement by the authority, or for a failure to use the right font, for example. These are matters the authority should be addressing.

The approach in the Bill gives the authority more flexibility in addressing any breaches of the advertising measures in the Bill and will allow it to react proportionately and quickly while still allowing it to address any breach by criminal prosecution for serious breaches where it deems necessary to do so.

As I have previously stated, I have concerns about adopting an absolute ban on advertising from the outset. Gambling is a lawful and legitimate activity and the Bill, as amended by the Dáil, further empowers the authority to be able to react and regulate advertising accordingly. The Bill will still provide that gambling advertisement must include details of licensees' registration with the authority and this information will inform the public about who is a lawfully regulated entity licensed to operate in the State and will protect participants and assist them with recourse to the authority. An absolute prohibition would muddy the waters and lead to confusion as to who is licensed to be a legitimate operator and who is not. Our intention is to protect people participating in gambling and not to inadvertently facilitate unlicensed operators. I hope that the Senators will accept the Government's policy approach in this situation.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. While I welcome the work the Minister of State on the watershed to 9 o'clock, I disagree with him that we cannot ban gambling advertising 24-7 for the same reasons that he has introduced the watershed. I think the we can ban gambling advertising 24-7 and I believe that will be something that the regulator will have to look at even within the next year or so because I believe this legislation will see a kickback. The television broadcasting I spoke about and was spoken about by other Members here last night will be full of so many gambling advertisements that the regulator will have no other option but to look at banning gambling advertising 24-7 or introducing a more restrictive watershed. I ask the Minister of State to look at it again. I accept his bona fides on the watershed but I believe the regulator will be back looking to change what we are about to pass here.

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

I thank the Senator very much. I think at this stage that a complete ban is a step too far but I will certainly keep it under consideration. The authority does have the power to make further recommendations for further restrictions and it would be important, as the Senator has said, that the authority does exercise that role.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 118 is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 118, 119, 143, and 144 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. It that agreed? Agreed.

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

The national lottery currently operates under the National Lottery Act 2013 and its activities are regulated by the office of the Regulator of the National Lottery. This also includes extensive oversight concerning the sales and supply of equipment to the holder of the licence to operate the national lottery and any of its agents. In this context amendments Nos. 118 and 119 to sections 68 and 69 of the Bill are necessary to ensure that the Bill does not affect the continued supply of services and equipment to the national lottery and that any person who provides the lottery with services and equipment will not be required to hold a business-to-business licence under this Bill in that context. Where a person supplies equipment and or services to both a gambling licensee under the Bill and to the national lottery, that person will still be required to hold a business-to-business gambling licence under the Bill in respect of any activities regulated by the law.

Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 to section 87 are minor technical amendments to ensure the correct terminology is used when referring to those operating the national lottery.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It almost seems as if this might be something outside the Minister of State's remit given the reference to the national lottery. I cannot help thinking that these amendments do not impact directly on the national lottery but impact upon the companies who will be regulated by this Bill. This is in exactly the same way that I was proposing in my amendments earlier that would have an impact on the people and companies who are to be regulated by this Bill and not the national lottery itself. While, again, I accept the Minister of State's bona fides in saying that he does not have permission from the Department of public expenditure or the Minister there in regard to my amendments, did the Minister of State require permission for these amendments because I do not see how they go any further than the amendments I was proposing? If that is the case, perhaps then he does not need the permission that he thought he did and perhaps he could retrospectively agree, or agree on Report Stage, to my amendments.

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

I actually disagree with the Senator. We are explicitly ensuring here that anyone doing business with the national lottery is not governed by this legislation because we do not have the jurisdiction to regulate those businesses in their dealings with the national lottery.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We now reach section 80 and Amendment No. 121 in the name of Senator Ward. Amendment Nos. 121, 122, amendments Nos. 125 to 127, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 338 to 340, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 122 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 121. Amendment Nos. 339 and 340 are a physical alternative to amendment No. 338. Amendments Nos. 121, 122, and 125 to 127, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 338 to 340, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 121:

In page 64, to delete lines 24 to 37, and in page 65, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following: “ “maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings” means such amount or amounts set by the Authority, with the consent of the Minister, in regulations made under subsection (2) of section 81;”.

Amendment No. 121 refers to section 80 of the Bill which is Part 5. Essentially this section deals with preliminary, general matters and definitions which will apply to Part 5. Currently in this Part, there is a significant and lengthy definition of what constitutes a maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings. They are set out there and make reference to columns in Schedule 2. I do not have a problem with there being a benchmark for what maximum winnings or maximum payments should be. Again, I think with a view to making this Bill operable, it should be setting these limits but what I am proposing in this amendment is, rather than setting out an exhaustive set of figures, that we would perhaps even set a minimum standard but would ultimately give the power to the regulator to decide from time to time what those amounts should be.In order to change these amounts, we will have to amend the legislation. That is an unnecessarily rigid approach because the value of these figures will change over time. We are in a decreasing inflationary environment now but who is to say that in one or ten years inflation will not be higher and the value of the money and the figures in the Schedule and Bill may change dramatically? Rather than the Government having to come back to these Houses to seek approval to increase or decrease the sums, which is highly unlikely, to a figure that is reflective, it is better to index-link them but that is probably difficult. Rather than that, the power should be given to the regulator to set them from time to time. I propose that instead of the five-paragraph definition of "maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings", I suggest that means such amount or amounts set by the authority with the consent of the Minister in regulations made under section 81(2). It is proposed that when this legislation becomes law and the regulator or authority is up and running, it will have the power to make regulations. I do not suggest that it would be able to do that with free rein or without supervision. The next section provides for that power and states that the party may prescribe any of the following and sets out the powers the regulator will have to make regulations. I do not even propose that she would be able to make them in isolation; she would have to do so in consultation with and with the consent of the Minister. There is still democratic control from the ministerial office. Rather than setting out a series of amounts and maximums, would we not be better off with a starting point and leaving it up to the regulator or the authority to decide in one year, ten years, or, let us hope, 20 or 50 years - as long as the body is in being - to modify those amounts to reflect the reality of the value of money at that time? It makes more sense, which I said on Committee Stage, that I would rather the regulator had more power and discretion to do that because she and her team are the ones who will be closest to the coalface in dealing with the issues that arise. I would rather empower her to make those changes than have them set solidly and prescribed in legislation.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 127 and 338 are related so I will discuss them together. Amendment No. 338 changes Schedule 2, which relates to maximum relevant payments and winnings for games and lotteries. The Bill contains boring proposals setting the maximum relevant payment for a relevant game at €10. Slot machines and other types of high-speed electronic gaming machines are proven to be by far the most addictive and harmful forms of gambling. They are created to be addictive and it is embedded in their design. At the relevant maximum payment levels set in this Schedule, a person playing a slot machine or online slots using the autoplay function, as most users do, could stake €14,400 per hour based on a minimum speed of 2.5 seconds per slot, as outlined by the Great Britain gambling commission. They may have some wins on the way but the percentage of average return to a player on these machines is approximately 95%, meaning a player would be highly likely to lose at least the average weekly wage if not more by playing on one of these machines for an hour. In May, the Great Britain gambling commission published new rules on a remote game design, which will come into force on 17 January 2025. These new rules will reduce the speed and intensity of online products. It is important that we recognise this particular risk posed by high-speed electronic gaming machines and virtual games. Amendment No. 338 as it relates to the Schedule would lower the maximum relevant payment for games of a duration of under 20 seconds. This is a more targeted approach than offered in the Bill and seeks to distinguish high-speed gambling games and the particular risks they pose. It would also set a lower maximum relevant payment for those aged 18 to 24. Younger people, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 24, are at high risk of developing gambling problems. Their decision-making ability has not yet matured, their brain is still developing and they are more likely to take risks and act impulsively. The UK Government recognised that this age group has the highest average gambling problem score of any group.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator. As it is 2. 45 p.m., the debate must be adjourned according to the Order of Business of the Seanad today.