Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. No. 2 is the Gambling Regulation Bill 2022, Report and Final Stages. The proceedings shall conclude at 7.30 p.m., if not previously concluded. When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we commence, I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage, each non-Government amendment must be seconded.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 23, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(b) a personal gaming device or console,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

A lot of the discussion has previously happened on Committee Stage but some of the amendments we have brought forward to Report Stage are ones we felt we could not really let go at the last Stage of debate.

The Minister of State stated he would come back on amendment No. 1 and that he would consider our amendment. I hope that he can accept this amendment today as he did indicate an interest in addressing it on the previous Stage. The amendment includes a "gaming device" in the definition of remote devices that might be used to gamble under this Bill. We highlighted on Committee Stage how children are at risk of being exposed to gambling through video and computer games such as loot boxes and in-game purchases which offer rewards entirely at chance, mimic gambling activity and offer an entry point to gambling for children and teenagers. It is estimated that half of the gambling industry's annual earnings are made from these types of in-game purchases.

We have concerns about how the industry might adapt to the new regulations given the profitability of this sector. Moreover, there is a clear link between loot box spending and developing problem gambling behaviours in older adolescence.

As I noted at the beginning of my contribution, the Minister of State said he would give this amendment further consideration between Committee Stage and Report Stage. We hope that he can accept our amendment at this Stage.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If no other Senators wish to speak, then I ask the Minister of State to reply.

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

I thank Senators Ruane, Higgins, Black and Flynn for tabling their amendment. I certainly understand where the Senators are coming from but we are satisfied that we achieve what the amendment seeks to achieve through our currently drafted legislation. I am satisfied that these devices are already provided for in the Bill as the reference to "the Internet" in paragraph (a) of the definition of "remote means" covers personal gaming devices and consoles.Such devices cannot operate without access to the Internet to use online and in-gaming services and it is difficult to clearly define these devices in legislation. While a gaming console could possibly be defined, the term "a personal gaming device" is more problematic. Given that almost every device has multiple uses these days, it could be a phone, tablet, e-reader or anything else capable of offering games. It is inadvisable and not the proper practice to be overly prescriptive in primary legislation as it tends to have the opposite effect than intended and of narrowing what is captured by the Act. This is particularly important when regulating an industry that is constantly changing at a rapid rate. I am therefore satisfied that these devices are already captured by the Bill and in that context, I regrettably cannot accept the Senator's amendment, though I certainly agree with her intention.

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

It is essentially a similar answer to the one given last week. I do not believe that gaming consoles are completely covered by the word "Internet". As it currently stands, people can access and be exposed to such things as advertisements while they are offline. I do not know whether anyone has tried to play a game while up in the air in an aeroplane. They would still see advertisements come up in those games if they do not subscribe to them. The word "Internet" does not actually capture all the ways people can be targeted online on a gaming console without access to the Internet. I do not agree with the Minster of State's interpretation that it is covered. I do not have anything more to add. I will press the amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 in the name of Senators Gavan and Warfield is ruled out of order as it was previously rejected by Committee of the whole Seanad.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 27, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(b) to take measures to reduce or eliminate compulsive or excessive gambling,”

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

Amendment No. 3 would ensure the authority must, as part of its function, take steps to reduce problem gambling. We have listened to the Minister of State and have taken on board his views about the intention of the authority to reduce gambling harm and believe this amendment would strengthen that intention and make it very clear that the authority exists to try to eliminate problem gambling in our society. It would be a missed opportunity not to include this as part of the functions of the authority. While the Minister of State may be of the view that it is unnecessary, we disagree. We need to be explicit about what we want the authority to do, especially about problem gambling and gambling harms.

Amendment No. 4 also relates to the functions of the authority and ensuring it must enhance public awareness of the harms associated with compulsive and excessive gambling. At the moment, there is no reference to gambling harms in the authority's functions, despite the fact that we know how harmful gambling can be to people and communities. The authority will conduct research and will regularly communicate with the public as part of its work. This offers an opportunity for the authority to also inform the public about gambling harms. While a later section of the Bill refers to communicating with the public, given the importance of early intervention it seems important that the authority would communicate the harms as part of its central functions. My colleague, Senator Higgins, spoke last week about the difference in respect of empowering the authority with a function. The authority would only be made stronger with the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill.

Amendment No. 5 would also expand the functions of the authority, by specifically including "emerging trends and technologies" in the research function of the authority. As discussed with regard to gambling-like activities in gaming and cryptocurrencies, we are concerned that technologies and new trends in the gambling industry may outpace regulation. Gambling companies use advanced profiling systems and target individual users. We know how dangerous and predatory these practices can be. The authority must be informed about these practices and that is what this amendment is trying to achieve.

Amendment No. 6 proposes to include knowledge of "personal data processing and the principles of data protection" in the matters the Minister shall have regard to when determining the selection criteria for members of the authority.We are still concerned about how the Bill addresses gambling companies, their processes and their use of customers' data. Gambling companies use this data to develop personalised profiles of customers. The behaviours that are captured through this data and the profiles that are developed allow companies to target users to spend more time and money on their websites and apps. If the authority is to meaningfully address this type of predatory use of customers' data, the members of the authority need to have the relevant expertise in these areas. We hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It is a simple change that will empower the authority to be more informed and better equipped to tackle the use of data to encourage customers to gamble in targeted ways.

Amendment No. 7 aims to add to the research agenda of the new gambling regulator by including research on illegal or unregulated gambling taking place in Ireland and also gambling by children. We heard lots last week in the debates about black markets and illegal gambling but the focus of this amendment is the more sinister types of gambling. While this Bill will improve the regulation of gambling in Ireland, we have some worries about illegal forms of gambling that will not be addressed by it. It is important for the new regulator to keep an eye on illegal and unregulated gambling in its research programme so that steps can be taken to expand the regulations or to interfere with the illegal activity.

A key part of this amendment is that the research agenda would also look at illegal gambling by children. Whether we want to admit it or not, we know this is happening. While the Bill has some good protections for children in the regulated market, the Civil Engagement Group Senators feel the regulator should also keep an eye on how children can be kept safe from the harms caused by illegal gambling.

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

Regrettably, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive. Speaking to amendment No. 3, as I previously outlined on Committee Stage, 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 services for the treatment of compulsive or excessive gambling and this matter is already addressed in the Bill.

In respect to amendments Nos. 4 and 5, section 32 provides the authority with a broad mandate to undertaken, commission or collaborate with research projects in relation to gambling, including gambling addiction, the harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling and to keep itself aware of emerging trends and developments in the gambling sector. Section 32 does not preclude any of these. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the authority has been given wide scope to develop its knowledge and expertise on all aspects of gambling, including those that are the subject of the Senators' amendments.

Similarly, I do not agree with prescribing every aspect of what the authority can or cannot research in primary legislation as being over-prescriptive generally has the opposite effect of restricting the scope of the provision, which is then contrary to the public health policy grounding the legislation, and could hinder the ability of the authority to research emerging or new features of this constantly changing sector.

I cannot accept amendment No. 6 as it is not necessary that members of the board of the authority must have explicit expertise in relation to data protection. All persons, whether on the board of the authority, in the employment of the authority or contracted by the authority, will be bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018. This is a general legal requirement applicable to all and is provided at subsection (4)(a). Additionally, bespoke expertise in data protection issues will be provided by the authority's own legal and data protection teams.

On amendment No. 7, as I have previously outlined, the authority has been given a broad remit to develop its own knowledge and expertise on all aspects of gambling and gambling activities. Section 32 provides that the authority may undertake, commission or collaborate with research projects in relation to gambling or gambling activities. The list provided for in the section is not exhaustive and would not preclude the authority from engaging in research relating to other matters it felt were necessary or appropriate. Furthermore, it is a key function of the authority to address unlicensed gambling and to ensure the protection of children.

For the reasons outlined, I believe the matters the Senators have raised are already sufficiently addressed within the Bill.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 28, line 18, after "activities", to insert ", including the harms associated with compulsive and excessive gambling".

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 28, line 23, after "activities,", to insert "including research into emerging industry trends and technologies,".

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 29, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“(e) personal data processing and the principles of data protection,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No.7:

In page 39, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(c) the prevalence of illegal or unregulated gambling, including by children;”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 40, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(3) The Authority shall keep under review certain activities by non-licensees, which, while not constituting gambling activity, may operate in manner sufficiently similar and constitute sufficiently similar risk as gambling activity, and may, from time to time, prepare a report of any findings and set out such recommendations as it considers appropriate.”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

This amendment seeks to insert a new subsection which would charge the Gambling Authority with reviewing gambling-like activities which may need to be regulated in the future. With this amendment we are thinking of things like cryptocurrency and trade in speculative investments which are not technically gambling but do look and behave a bit like gambling. The Gambling Commission in the UK has researched emerging trends in gambling-like activity and found that there are close links between problem gambling and risky investing. This amendment would simply charge our own gambling regulator with responsibility to keep similar trends under review so that we can keep more people safe from harm moving forward.

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

The matters raised in amendment No. 8 are already addressed within the Bill. Section 33 provides that the authority may consider existing emerging practices in gambling and gambling activities, including activities that are similar to or may be gambling. Where the authority identifies an issue of concern, it shall prepare and submit a report with any recommendations to the Minister for consideration. I am satisfied that the matters raised by the Senators are already provided for through a comprehensive review of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 41, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(g) the Health Service Executive,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

These amendments seek to add two persons whom the authority may enter into an information-sharing agreement with in the performance of its functions. In amendment No. 9, we are seeking the inclusion of the HSE. As we highlighted on Committee Stage, we believe that there should be a capacity for the authority to share information with the HSE. By framing gambling harm through a public health lens, we can begin to understand the adverse impacts of gambling on the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities and wider society. In its inquiry into public health approaches in Northern Ireland to gambling-related harms, the Institute of Public Health suggested that data-sharing agreements should be included as a licensing requirement. There would be significant value to the authority in having this connection with the HSE, given the latter’s expertise in the public health impacts of problem gambling. This could meaningfully help to reduce gambling-related harms.

Amendment No. 10 seeks to include the Central Bank. There are valuable insights that banks can share with the authority in terms of identifying gambling-related activity and suspicious account behaviour. Banks can offer protections to account holders and share valuable information with the authority. Recently, AIB introduced voluntary block features on transactions linked to gambling activity. Sharing the information that allows banks to create these targeted responses to gambling activity would be incredibly useful to the authority. In that context, we hope that the Minister of State will consider these amendments.

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

It is a matter of law that all persons and bodies are bound by the provisions of the GDPR and the 2018 Act. The law is strict as regards a person’s health and financial data. It is not the role of the authority to request or receive sensitive health-related information in respect of people who are gamblers, neither is it permissible for the HSE to share such data. In that regard, I will not accept amendment No. 9. However, as part of its research function, the authority will be liaising with public health bodies and will be in a position to consider general health data relating to gambling patterns and addiction.

Regarding amendment No. 10, Senator Black cited on Committee Stage a need for the Central Bank to share account holders’ data with the authority.If they identify suspicious behaviour, matters of fraud would be for the banks to address not the authority. Senator Black also stated that the banks could notify the authority if the affected people were using their savings for gambling. The banks have numerous obligations in respect of money laundering. Outside of this, however, it is not a matter for the banks or anyone else to determine whether a person who is using moneys from his or her savings account lawfully should be prevented from doing so. This is neither practical nor is it permissible.

The legislation bans the use of credit to gamble and the options were made for a person to approach their bank if they feel they need to have certain types of payments blocked on their account. Persons who feel they have a problem with gambling also have the option of going onto the national gambling exclusion register. In this context I am satisfied that such an amendment is not practical or permissible, and that the Bill provides sufficient financial and social tools to support people who consider that they need help.

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

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 41, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(g) the Central Bank,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 arise out of committee proceedings, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 45, after line 34, 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.”

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

On amendments Nos. 11 and 12, section 45 sets out the way in which the new exclusion register will work. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 relate to improving data protection and upholding a person's right to privacy under this Bill. Amendment No.11 proposes to bestow a new power on the authority that would mean it would request gambling companies to delete the personal data of their customers that they have stored. It is important that when someone is on the exclusion register, any data stored by the companies the person wants to be excluded from would be deleted. We are aware that data is used by gambling companies to create profiles of their customers, former customers and future customers. If a person takes a step to self-exclude from a gambling company, we cannot allow for the gambling company to hold onto that person's data and try to figure out how to lure him or her back at the end of an exclusion period. Amendment No.11 would give effect to this.

Amendment No. 12 makes it the case that a company could not continue to collect, collate or process the personal data of a person while he or she is on the exclusion register. In a similar way to amendment No. 11, amendment No. 12 tries to make it the case that a gambling company could not continue to build up a data profile of a customer or former customer while he or she is on the exclusion register. This is in order that such people are not lured back into the gambling habits they have tried to leave behind for that period.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As no other Senators wish to speak, I invite the Minister of State.

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

I will respond to amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together. It is important to reiterate that in the drafting this Bill, I consulted the Data Protection Commission and the commission did not specify a need for such a provision to be included. Furthermore, the national gambling exclusion register prohibits licensees from communicating with any person on the register. Licensees need to maintain a certain amount of data in order for the system to interact with the register and verify the identities of people excluded from gambling. If they do not do so then the register will not work and licensees would not be able to comply with their obligations concerning the register. A prohibition on communicating with a person on the register cannot be enforced. On that basis, I am not satisfied that such a provision as proposed in the Senator's amendment is necessary.

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

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 47, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

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

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 74, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Gambling activities

91. (1) Notwithstanding section 65, a person may provide a game or lottery without a gambling licence where—

(a) the game or lottery is a broadcast competition in accordance with subsection (6),

(b) persons are not required to make a payment to participate in the game or lottery,

(c) there is no additional payment required only of the winner to obtain the winnings, and

(d) the winnings are paid out within a period of 6 months from the first date on which persons are invited to participate in the game or lottery concerned.

(2) An exempt broadcast competition is deemed not to be a relevant gambling activity for the purposes of this Act.

(3) For the purposes of section 91(1)(b), a reference to making a payment does not include a reference to incurring the expense, at a normal rate, of—

(a) sending a letter by ordinary post,

(b) making a telephone call, or

(c) using any other method of communication.

(4) For the purpose of section 91(3)—

(a) a “normal rate” is a rate which does not reflect the opportunity to enter a lottery, and

(b) ordinary post means ordinary first-class or second-class post (without special arrangements for delivery).

(5) For the purposes of section 91(1)(b), a person shall be treated as not being required to make a payment to participate in the game or lottery if—

(a) each individual who is eligible to participate has a choice whether to participate by paying or by sending a communication,

(b) the communication mentioned in paragraph (a) may be—

(i) a letter sent by ordinary post, or

(ii) another method of communication which is neither more expensive nor less convenient than entering the lottery by paying,

(c) the choice is publicised in such a way as to be likely to come to the attention of each individual who proposes to participate, and

(d) the system for allocating prizes does not differentiate between those who participate by paying and those who participate by sending a communication.

(6) In this section—

“broadcast competition” means a game or lottery conducted by a licensed broadcaster in connection with its editorial broadcast activities;

“exempt broadcast competition” means a broadcast competition that may be provided without a gambling licence in accordance with subsection (1);

“licensed broadcaster” means a person providing a sound broadcasting service in accordance with section 59 and section 63 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 or in accordance with Part 7 (Chapters 1 and 2) of the Broadcasting Act 2009.”.

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

I second the amendment.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have spoken on this Bill on a number of occasions and like everyone else, I am concerned about problem gambling. Where this Bill tackles that issue, it is welcome. I have commended the Minister of State and his officials on that initiative. However, in my view the Bill has gone past problem gambling and has overreached on other issues. Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to radio phone-in competitions. Nobody in this House has ever had anyone come to them to say they have a problem with radio bingo, radio quizzes or phone-in competitions. The Bill has redesignated things as gambling that I believe to be entertainment. Over time, I have had plenty of people share with me the destruction wrought on their lives of problem gambling. I am as committed as the next one to making sure we address it insofar as we can. However, I have been in these Houses for 22 years and have yet to have anyone approach about the issues I have raised. I believe the Bill has reached into that area.

Broadcasting in Ireland, as we see with RTÉ, is in a troubled place. RTÉ, as it is getting massively bailed out by the State, does not need to worry about this Bill but I think it will close down "The Late Late Show" competitions for holidays and so forth, and the competitions during sports programmes. On radio, whether local or national, it will also interfere with their competitions. It will probably catch newspapers too it they give away a cruise or whatever, as The Irish Times does sometimes with coupons you cut out. It will take engagement out of media, including radio. Getting people to engage is what politics is all about but this Bill seeks to take away from broadcasters that run competitions. I certainly do not believe that was the intention of the Minister of State and hopefully it was not the desire of the Government.

This Government wants a diverse and pluralist media. If it is not careful it will narrow the supply of media as this Bill takes away another source of funding for what could be suggested by some as nanny state reasons and beyond. It is making radio competitions into problem gambling when they are nothing of the sort. While print media gets a lot of the concern regarding the future of the sector, broadcasters too are in trouble. I have spoken about this in the past because I have a significant interest in public service media, public service broadcasting and public service journalism generally. It is something I feel is a bedrock and a significant check and balance on the democratic institutions of this State. The competition for media generally is now coming from the Internet, and nothing in this Bill is going to regulate problem gambling through that particular gamut.

To outline my concern, broadcasters' lunches are being eaten by the big social media platforms, which are gobbling up the advertising. We know about this. We have seen this throughout. The broadcasters' pot gets smaller and smaller. While running competitions is not their bread and butter, it helps radio stations make a turn in a declining market. As I said on the last day, it creates a level of engagement. There is no doubt but that there are elderly people, among whom I count some close relations, who enjoy some of these competitions as they live alone. While some of these competitions help to pay to an extent for journalism and local programming already highly regulated with up to four regulators, the Minister is now bringing them under the gambling regulator for radio phone-ins. Some stations will probably just not do that due to the cost and will lose a stream of revenue that pays some local reporter's wage. The Bill could mean, like with RTÉ or fundraising for political parties, that the State has to become the funder of last resort for everything if broadcasters start to fail.

Many people in the two Houses of the Oireachtas talk about Irish unity and if we are serious about this ever, we need to make sure laws North and South are compatible. My amendment does not seek unity, but it seeks to simply state that if this madness with regard to broadcasting is to be stopped, there must be another way. The Minister of State said last week that the way my Committee Stage amendment was drafted tied all regulation to the licence, exempting broadcasters from having to hold a licence to provide gambling activities. He kindly said that if anybody wanted to submit further amendments, he would consider them, but he is not minded to provide any kind of exemption for particular types of commercial activities at this stage. What I am doing with this amendment is aligning this Bill with the UK where, if a free route of entry is offered, it is not deemed to be gambling. It makes certain broadcast competitions exempt and no longer tied to just the radio licence, where people are not required to make a payment to participate in the game or lottery. No additional payment is required only of the winner to obtain the winnings.The winnings are paid out within a period of six months from the first date on which persons are invited to participate in the game or lottery concerned. Then, it is stated, "an exempt broadcast competition is deemed not to be a relevant gambling activity for the purposes of this Act". That is as I have set it out in the amendment. My amendment does as the Minister asks. It does not tie it to just the radio licence, which is a very onerous matter in any event. This amendment mimics the UK scenario and makes the Republic the same for broadcasters as the situation in the UK. Surely what applies up the road and some miles across the water should apply here.

How can something with a free route of entry be gambling? It is counterintuitive. If radio broadcasters are prevented from promoting radio bingo or other games of skill or luck during normal hours by the Bill, I cannot imagine that this is what the Minister wanted or wants to do. An exemption from the operation of the Bill for licensed radio broadcasters with a free route of entry is appropriate because there is no cogent public policy basis for treating licenser competitions, conducted by licensed broadcasters, as a form of gambling. This arises because such competitions are already well regulated, there is no evidence of harm arising from the conduct of such competitions and they fund quality local journalism and entertainment.

Regarding existing regulations, broadcasters are already subject to a wide range of regulations that contribute to the fair and transparent conduct of competitions by them. Such regulation includes regulation by ComReg and Coimisiún na Meán, the imposition of mandatory spend caps, industry self-regulation by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, and general consumer protection regulation. In addition to these consumer protections, broadcasters typically self-impose mechanisms to ensure fairness and transparency. For example, they do this by voluntarily setting spend caps below the mandatory caps and utilising third-party winner selection software.

Noting the extensive regulation I have described, requiring the media sector to contribute to the funding of yet another regulator adds to the financial insecurity for broadcasters and contributes to the perception of unevenness in the treatment of radio by this Government. As I said last week, industry experience with listener competitions is that they generate almost no consumer complaints. The evidence provided by the Phone-paid Services Authority which regulates premium rate telephony in the UK shows that while broadcasters are the largest users of phone-paid services, the sector has generated no complaints in the past five years. The Bill as it stands is trying to solve a programme that I perceive does not yet exist.

Listening competitions allow consumers to actively engage with and participate in broadcast shows rather than passively consuming their context. They enable two-way communication, fostering a more engaging and personalised experience. They should be allowed to continue without more regulation if there is a free route of entry. Listener competitions provide a vital source of income to broadcasters and that is needed to maintain current services.

Unlike gambling providers, broadcasters play an indispensable role in society and their funding must be protected. Broadcasters serve as a primary local platform for delivering news and current affairs to the public. In doing so, they compete against global tech giants which have extraordinary financial resources but have demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to remove disinformation from their platforms. Broadcasters facilitate the dissemination of quality local information, fostering an informed citizenry that is crucial for a thriving democracy. Broadcasters are instrumental in preserving and promoting society's cultural identity. They showcase local talent, share local stories, provide a platform for the diverse voices that make up the fabric of the nation, and do so in an environment that is free of the toxic activity often associated with large online platforms.

Broadcasters support jobs and stimulate innovation, particularly in the realms of journalism and entertainment, by fostering an environment that encourages creativity and diversity of content. Broadcasters offer a diverse array of programmes and cater for a wide audience, from educational content to cultural showcases, sports coverage and recreational programming. They play a vital role in enhancing the quality of life for citizens across the nation.

The loss of income from listener competitions would put pressure of broadcasters' funding, which would likely lead to a loss of jobs in this sector, including in journalism and context creators; a loss of revenue in jobs and associated sectors, including the music and arts sector and the broader creative industries; a reduction in quality and quantity of local journalism content; and the introduction of user paywalls, reducing accessibility for vulnerable consumer groups including the elderly and lower income groups. Those financial consequences would be compounded by an additional requirement on the media sector to contribute to the funding of the new regulator.

I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment. I am also happy to engage with his officials if it his desire to draw up a different amendment or one that meets his requirements and mine at the same time. I ask him to consider the amendment. I know it is coming at a particular juncture in the passage of this legislation and it is often difficult to have a Bill amended on Report Stage but I appeal to him based on what I have set out and the true and real concerns of the sector.

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

As noted on Committee Stage, the policy underpinning the Bill is to regulate gambling in the State, with an emphasis on ensuring that there are public health protection measures to protect vulnerable gamblers. All gambling is to be regulated through the Bill, and that includes games run by charities and sporting organisations under the advertising piece. A number of other amendments have been included to acknowledge the distinction between charities, sporting organisations and other philanthropic organisations and other types of gambling operators.

As to how the amendments are drafted, because all regulation is tied to the licence, exempting broadcasters from having to hold the licence to provide gambling activities would mean they would not be regulated. We are not prohibiting competitions on radio. I do not believe it is an onerous requirement for them, like everyone else, to apply for the appropriate licence to provide a game or a lottery. They are not being prohibited from conducting their activities; they are just required to operate in the same way as anyone else providing similar activities.

As highlighted previously, the Bill facilitates a modernisation of the licensing measures currently provided for in the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. What is in the Bill should not provide issue or cause for concern with the requirements to hold a licence. There is nothing surprising in the Bill because it is consistent with the law that people are currently complying with and are familiar with.

Collecting coupons from newspapers in respect of free cruises is not considered gambling under the legislation. I recognise the intention behind Senator's amendment but I cannot accept it.

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

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 83, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

“(c) a statement setting out the measures taken by the licensee to ensure compliance with data protection law, in addition to the steps taken to mitigate the potential for algorithmic harm to participants,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

This is a simple amendment by means of which we are seeking to impose new obligations on gambling licensees in terms of information and documentation to be provided when applying for a licence. We have talked at length about data privacy, both today and on Committee Stage, and how gambling companies use data to target and encourage customers to spend more money and time on their apps and services. I hope it is clear what our intention is with this amendment. We know that gambling companies use data to target participants. We also know that this data is designed to encourage participants to gamble. It is incredibly important that we know that licensees are taking their obligations regarding data protection seriously. An obligation to make a statement on steps taken to curb the potential for harm to users in processing of their data, would be a clear indication of this.

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

I thank Senator Ruane for tabling this amendment. Unfortunately, I cannot accept it for two reasons. First, all persons and bodies hoarding personal data are obliged to comply with the obligations set out in general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. This is an existing legal requirement, and I cannot see a need for any person to make a statement as to how they intend to comply with domestic and European law. In fact, I would find it highly irregular and concerning if they did not intend to comply with their existing statutory obligations. Furthermore, ensuring compliance with the data protection obligations is a fundamental matter for the Office of the Data Protection Commission.

Second, I cannot accept the amendment because what is meant by the term "algorithmic harm" is unclear. It is not possible or proper practice to provide for such concepts in a clear manner in legislation.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 16 in the names of Senators Gavan and Warfield arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 118, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(4) Subject to subsection (3), a person shall not advertise, or cause another person to advertise, any event exclusively named after a licensee under this Act.”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 16 states: "Subject to subsection (3), a person shall not advertise, or cause another person to advertise, any event exclusively named after a licensee under this Act.” This is a straightforward and important amendment that would target, for example, the likes of the Paddy Power Comedy Festival and other blatant misuses of sponsorship to replace advertising.

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

On amendment No. 16, as the Senators will appreciate, at its core, the Bill is a public health measure aimed at protecting people from gambling harm, including children, younger people and those more vulnerable in our communities. In this context, section 159 includes extensive provisions concerning the sponsorship of events by licensees to protect children, breaches of which constitute a criminal offence. With respect to events aimed at adults, I am satisfied that section 144(4) empowers the authority to regulate the advertising and sponsorship of such events and addresses the matters raised in the amendment.

Amendment No. 17 is vague. Given the multiple media by which video games are provided, as I mentioned earlier, a “personal gaming device” could be anything and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

I cannot accept amendment No. 18 as I am satisfied that section 144 appropriately addresses the matters raised by the Senators.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the Minister of State’s point. However, I am reminded of what Senator McDowell said two weeks ago when he asked whether the Bill was really about permitting gambling as opposed to curbing it. It seems from the Minister of State's response that he is happy to regulate gambling, which is disappointing. We know gambling companies are very creative in finding ways of replacing advertising, and one of the most straightforward ways they do that is by putting their names to various events. He should not allow them to do that.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 19, 24 and 25 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Daire O'Reilly, son of Senator Joe O'Reilly, to the Visitors Gallery. He is a newly qualified primary teacher, and we wish him well with that.

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

What is proposed in amendment No. 19 is provided for in the Bill and addressed in sections 162 and 163, which will oblige licensees to train their staff to a standard approved by the authority on these issues. In that context, I cannot accept the amendment.

I cannot accept amendment No. 24 as it raises matters that come under the remit of the Central Bank concerning unlicensed financial payment providers. This is a matter for the Central Bank to address and, in addition, it would be impractical to place such an obligation on a licensee in a context such as on-course or trackside betting.

On amendment No. 25, in drafting the Bill, I consulted with the Data Protection Commission and it did not specify the need for such a provision to be included. The matters raised in the amendment fall under the remit of the office of the Data Protection Commission under the Act of 2018 and the GDPR. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 20. Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 125, to delete lines 30 to 39, and in page 126, to delete lines 1 to 20 and substitute the following: “Offering inducement to gamble

157. A licensee to whom this Chapter applies may not offer the general public a benefit or advantage, the intent or effect of which is, either directly or indirectly, to encourage participation in gambling (in this section referred to as an “inducement”).”.

Currently, the Act allows an inducement to be offered, subject to regulations. This is perverse. While we accept there may be categories of inducements that are less harmful than others, a ban is the best alternative to the section as currently worded.

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

Regarding amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, on Committee Stage, a number of Senators raised concerns in respect of this section and a number of differing positions were expressed by different Senators. I consulted the Office of the Attorney General in respect of these provisions and was advised that the sections, as originally drafted, were somewhat legally ambiguous. That would put the courts in a difficult position as they would struggle to determine what was a permissible, well-regulated promotion that was open to everyone and what constituted inducement that was targeted at a person or a specific group of people, which would be prohibited and prosecutable. Furthermore, I was advised it would be live to the potential for challenges to the legislation on the grounds that it may constitute a disproportionate interference with their property rights under their right to earn a livelihood. This did and does not deter me from regulating this sector. However, the Bill is replete with the granting of significant regulation-making powers to the authority. This level of regulatory agility is designed to allow the authority to navigate this complex sector to be in a position to effectively regulate it and respond to various market practices in line with the public health policy grounding the legislation.

The sections were revised in order to provide clarity and achieve the desired objective. They have been revised again with a view to providing further clarity on this issue. The policy position remains rooted in the protection of public health. This is a broad and disparate industry, encompassing everything from our local and on-course bookmakers to multinational companies. There are numerous methods of interacting with the sector - in person, online and so forth - which broadens the challenge of regulating it in a manner that is meaningful and effective. The multinational aspect of this industry sets it somewhat apart from other sectors, such as the alcohol and tobacco sectors which typically are localised, so to speak, and involve the purchase of a product for ingestion by the person. On the other hand, there are numerous ways and methods of engaging in gambling activities, making it exceptionally complex to regulate. I am not in any way trying to differentiate the mental and emotional devastation and other forms of addiction from gambling addiction. I am highlighting some of the differences and challenges of legislating for their regulation in a manner that is legally robust and conceptually clear.

Following our debate last Wednesday evening, I re-examined section 157 to see if it could be amended further to provide clarification and some reassurance to Senators. In that context, I am tabling amendments Nos. 22 and 23.

Amendment No. 22 removes the clarification that a licensee may offer an inducement to the public and now states that inducements may only be offered in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 23 provides for a clearer definition of what constitutes an inducement, again consistent with the Bill since publication.

The net effect of the Government’s amendments is that it shall be a criminal offence to offer a targeted inducement to a person or a specific group of people. Licensees will be restricted to only offers or promotions in compliance with any regulations made under this section. Regulations made under this section may impose conditions, including restrictions on the manner in which an offer is conveyed to the public and restrictions on the type of offers that may be offered to the public, and may also prohibit certain offers being made, taking into account the policies and principles set out in section 157(5). Failure to comply with the prohibition or any regulations shall be a criminal offence and subject to prosecution. This approach provides the clarity and addresses the matters raised by certain Senators in the amendments.

On this basis, I am satisfied the Government’s amendments address the Senators’ concerns, provide the necessary clarifications and reassurances, and positively strengthen this section. They strengthen it in relation to those who have concerns about the legislation not being tight enough.However, I do not agree with - and neither did the all-party Oireachtas committee propose - a complete blanket ban on all advertisement that may be a promotion or inducement by this industry. Those concerned have a constitutional right to earn a living. There is a distinction between this particular type of activity and some others where there is a ban. While there are really tight restrictions on the types of offers that can be made here, we do not support a complete and total ban.

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

It was previously drafted in such a way that it was a positive affirmation that gambling companies could provide inducements. It was then a clarification that it could not be provided to individuals or groups. The positive affirmation was not actually needed and I agree that was redundant. I had concerns with it myself when I looked at it more carefully. That positive affirmation is removed. We have also put in the power for the gambling regulatory authority of Ireland to put in further restrictions as it sees necessary to restrict the types of offers that may be made and how they may be offered. That may be done by way of regulation and with the Minister.

We have moved from that positive affirmation to increasing the power of the authority. I appreciate it does not go as far as the Senator would like and introduce a complete ban but it really does strengthen the hand of the authority and the Minister to go even further as they see necessary.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Final Stage?

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

Now.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

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

Tomorrow, at 10:30 a.m.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.