Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2024

I welcome this important Bill. These amendments are from the Seanad. We had a debate on the Bill in this House previously. Colleagues have stated that the Bill is not perfect, but it is urgently needed because it deals with one of the most pressing social issues.

I wish to raise one matter with the Minister of State on which he might provide clarity. I refer to the law relating to private members' clubs and why casino gambling has been permitted for so long. This is something we tried to address in the 2019 legislation, because these institutions exist not too far from this House. They were deemed to be private members' clubs open to members only and they seem to be immune from the law. That was the clear advice from the Attorney General when we raised this matter. That advice was recounted to the Dáil by the then Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, in 2019. I will not rehearse all of the detail, but it seems that the advice in question has vanished. It struck me at the time as an absurd notion that if you pay on your way into a private members' club, the law does not apply, so you can have unregulated gambling. On the same basis, if you set up a heroin den, the law presumably does apply even if it is a private members' club. As a result, you cannot set up such a den. The private clubs on St. Stephen's Green are subject to the licensing laws in the normal course of events. I want to be clear that these amendments and this Bill will apply to all private clubs. I do not know if the Minister of State can give an explanation as to why what was impermissible and unconstitutional the last time we addressed this is not now unconstitutional and is quite permissible.

I confirm that private members' clubs will be covered. A couple of lads coming together in their home will not be, but private members' clubs as we know them will be covered by this legislation. I do not have an explanation as to why the advice differs, other than to say that I have always thought that the law is an art and not a science. As time moves on, interpretations can change. It was never something I was convinced of, and I am happy that our more recent Attorneys General are of the view that these clubs can be covered by gambling legislation. I am glad this is included in the legislation.

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 from people who ran up large debts with them. Amendment No. 37 retains the protections provided in section 36 of the Act of 1956 in relation to bookmakers to ensure this does not happen.

Amendment No. 38 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. In summary, the transitional measures introduced in Part 10 will provide that the authority commences its licensing functions. Existing legislation shall be repealed but all existing licences and related regulatory and enforcement powers under current legislation will continue to operate during the transitional period while there are still valid licences in operation.

Amendment No. 269 provides a list of Acts and relevant enactments that will be repealed by this Bill.

Amendment No. 42 provides for the ability of the authority to charge licensees a fee where they make an application to vary an aspect of their existing licence, while amendment No. 74 is a drafting amendment recommended by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel as a result of amendments introduced during Report and Final Stages in Dáil Éireann. The amendment is necessary to ensure the authority may seek court orders to block advertising by unlicensed and illegal operators. Amendment No. 94 is a small but important amendment that provides the authority with a legal basis to publish details of any contraventions of the licensing regime by licensees as well as details of any administrative sanctions imposed on licensees. It allows the authority to quickly make public and make industry stakeholders aware of any actions taken by the authority without having to do a search of the register of gambling licences. It is an important, effective regulatory tool used in other jurisdictions and one that will assure the public it is being protected while allowing the authority to send a message that it is regulating the industry.

Amendment No. 43 provides for the retention of a definition of "relevant date" which is the date from which a person on the register is excluded from gambling. In regard to amendment No. 44, the Bill previously provided for a national gambling exclusion register to allow people to register with the authority and exclude themselves from online gambling. The Bill provided that a person who wished to exclude could choose what activities and specify the particular licensees they wish to be excluded from gambling with. On further review, it became apparent that this did not go far enough from a public health perspective. Amendment No. 44 therefore provides that where a person wishes to exclude from gambling with the authority, the exclusion would apply to all online licensees and activities.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 amend sections 44(2)(b) and (c) to clarify that all licensees who provide gambling by remote means are obliged to comply with the requirements of the register.

On the overall generalities, families have been devastated by gambling addiction. More than 90,000 are estimated to have suffered from gambling harm. Each of these have family and loved ones directly impacted. It is disappointing the Bill does not give a role to people in recovery in determining policy and the approaches to gambling addiction. I know the Minister of State indicated he is not in favour of this, but that is felt by many of those families to be insulting. People in recovery with lived experience have much to contribute to this. Excluding people from the register is important. There is a concern with those who are on the authority or on the board that there maybe a revolving door from the industry to the board of the Gambling Authority and we must try to prevent this, when it gets up and running as soon as possible, when the people are being appointed to the board. The Bill must also be accompanied by funding for addiction services and awareness campaigns and support that are free of influence from industry. We support the regulated trade and acknowledge it is important to prevent the involvement of organised crime.

It is regrettable the Government had to be dragged to amending its position in response and was forced to do so by the Opposition and some of the amendments that were proposed through the passage of the Bill. First and foremost was the effect on charity and sporting sectors. Following some of the amendments which were proposed, an unprecedented mobilisation needed to take place against the blanket advertising watershed. The Government addressed the charity issue somewhat on Committee Stage and then our amendments were withdrawn following further discussion with the Department, sports clubs, GAA clubs and other community organisations that would still have to register to market their draws and lotteries. This Bill, as initially drafted, would have forbidden clubs from advertising basic fundraising draws on their Facebook page. The sporting organisations combined with the charitable sector to make their case clear. We were criticised somewhat on Committee Stage for the amendments which addressed their concerns, but this turned out to be the case and the Bill has been amended. In fairness to the Government, it did concede on that, which is a victory for clubs and organisations, but it should not have come to that.

The strength of the authority and the degree to which certain measures are prescribed by legislation was a matter of contestation throughout the debate. There were certain specifically banned situations where the name of a brand or licensee was primarily used to name an event. There are examples of major arts events on council properties where the promoter allows what I would say is too much soft advertising for the gambling industry.

The make-up of the authority itself, as I said, was something we sought to change. We demanded that persons with lived experience should be considered as part of the appointment process. In the round, however, the Bill is a positive development and the concessions the people who lobbied against certain aspects of the original Bill are important. We will not be opposing most of amendments.

We all know that problem gambling can lead to a total breakdown of social cohesion. It is a problem. I understand where the Minister of State is coming from with that. I was one of those who lobbied on behalf of the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation, GAA clubs and all kinds of fundraising. Indeed, we have a fundraiser in my own parish at the moment, called "Do it for Declan". He is a young men who is 40 this Sunday. There will be a massive day in my own village of Newcastle in an effort to fundraise to help him to build his home. He has a severe health diagnosis and he needs all the support he can get. The support has been phenomenal. We thank them for that - a small committee in a small place. The Irish people are wonderful in how they rise to a situation like that and support it. "Do it for Declan", as I said, is happening this Sunday in Newcastle, my own village in Tipperary. There is also a GoFundMe page.

The worry was that many of these fundraisers would fall. I was a great supporter of the Jack and Jill Children Foundation, which is a wonderful organisation. Jonathan Irwin, who is deceased, Lord have mercy on him, and his wife, Mary Ann, set that up after their own tragic case. They needed specialist care and did not get it.

The Minister of State has often been stubborn with horse breeders in Tipperary and Wexford, his own county with some of his closest supporters. This is an industry that, while it might be flamboyant with huge issues and racetracks and everything else and everyone thinks big, the small trainers are in my area in Tipperary. We are renowned for them. They need to be respected, listened to and engaged with.

The Minister of State would not listen to any of them. I said on Second Stage that the iarTheachta and iarAire, the Minister of State's dad, who was a Minister, who is a keen race-goer and a keen supporter, attempted to talk to him but he said a blanket "No"". I think this Bill has been driven by Micheál Martin after the smoking ban which we all accept now was a good thing. The Minister of State seems to be on a solo run to do everything. You cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg but you do not need a sledgehammer to crack a chestnut either; this is the season of chestnuts for Hallowe'en. I am not satisfied with how the Minister of State has handled this Bill and that he would not listen to or take amendments or anything else. He was totally obstinate and stubborn, not realising the impact. We want to sort out problem gambling and deal with it because it is pernicious; it follows you to your bedroom or workplace on these instruments. We do not have to have a wide sweep that will damage one of the main flagship Irish industries which is recognised all over the world. I never go horse racing; very seldom. I have not attended horse racing meets in my life but I understand the employment, investment, training and opportunities given to young jockeys, families and communities, such as Rachael Blackmore and all those people. They did not come from nowhere. They had to be supported and have the facilities to allow them to train. We have fabulous facilities which we need to keep.

I would love to know the final make-up of the board. I detest all these authorities being set up. They are quangos - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. They can overreach and it can be impossible to deal with them. There are unintended consequences and the Minister of State refuses to engage with the industry at any level, which is a serious wrong. Those people are enablers and invest their time, money and sweat and everything else. There are families who nurtured the horse racing industry at small levels and they need to be supported and protected. One size does not fit all; it is difficult. It is disappointing that the Minister of State refuses to engage or listen to any of the groups.

The Minister of State and I had a couple of debates on this on the floor and on radio. I acknowledge, as Deputy Daly said, that the serious concerns Sinn Féin brought forward have been acknowledged by the Minister of State, given there are so many amendments coming back to this House to fix this Bill. This would have caused serious problems for sporting organisations and charities across the State. All of our concerns regarding that part of the Bill have now been fixed with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of State. I do not say that to make the point that we were right but, rather, in the spirit of trying to make sure this Bill is appropriate. We need a proper gambling regulation Bill. I have stated it on numerous occasions but, to avoid any doubt, I am involved in a not-for-profit organisation and I am director of a local music festival. In raising money for that, we operate a lottery licence. This legislation will affect us and many of the people with whom we compete who operate outside of current regulations and will be dealt with.

There is still a serious issue with this Bill which I mention in the spirit of the issues I brought forward in the past. It relates to social media advertising, in particular the definition of "relevant content" in the section. As we are dealing with an administrative print of this Bill, the original and amendments, I ask that this be flagged when we come to sections 141 and 146. I would like to propose a verbal amendment to the Bill at that point to address the issue. In brief, under current legislation, a licensee can continue to advertise on social media as long as three things are applicable - that the person has signed up to the social media service, is a subscriber to the licensee's account on that service and in accordance with the applicable regulations. I will use Paddy Power as an example because it is well known, not that it is doing anything wrong. Paddy Power will be able to continue to advertise on social media if the recipient has an account with that person, for example, Paddy Power, the recipient has subscribed to the licensee's account on that service, for example, they liked the Facebook page, and in accordance with the applicable regulations. Those are the rules. The problem is the Bill states it has to advertise "relevant content". Paddy Power could not advertise on social media just targeting people who are account holders of Paddy Power. That is important because that will no longer happen as a result of this legislation and I am sure that is the Minister of State's intention. It states in this section that is "advertising relevant content", which is where the definition of relevant content is flawed. The definition in this section provides that "relevant content" means, in relation to advertising, "a relevant gambling activity, or in the case of a Business to Consumer gambling licence, the licensee of that gambling licence".

If Flutter Entertainment, the owner of Paddy Power, is the licensee, there is nothing in these regulations to stop Paddy Power from advertising Paddy Power or Paddy Power's logo or giving away ten free tickets. They are not allowed to advertise a gambling activity because that would be relevant content, but it will be able to advertise its logo, trademark and brand. That is not captured in the definition in this section. I would argue that is not the intention of the Minister of State. In section 145, which concerns how content delivered is defined, although it is a different section, it also refers to "Logo, trademark, emblem or marketing image of such a licensee." It refers to sporting events but I suggest through a verbal amendment to this Bill that the Minister of State include in the definition of "relevant content" not just how it is currently defined - the relevant gambling activity or the licensee of that gambling activity. The licensee does not capture the rest. The licensee may not be the brand name, logo or emblem. It may not even be the company. The intention is that a Paddy Power would not be allowed to advertise to the public saying, "Like this page for ten free tickets to Oasis." Once you like the page and subscribe to Paddy Power, which may be the conditions of entry, Paddy Power is free to advertise to you because you are then a subscriber and account holder. The definition of "relevant content" is not strong enough and will allow for issues which are otherwise dealt with in the Bill. In this section, "relevant content" is again defined for the purpose of the section. The definition includes the name of the licensee. If Paddy Power is the licensee, it is not allowed to put Paddy Power up but it would be allowed to put a logo up that does not have the name of Paddy Power. If Paddy Power is not the licensee - I can name numerous companies with a brand name and trading name that are different from the registered company name, the legal entity that will apply for the licence in respect of this. Other parts of the Bill also deal with the registration of licensees, which also include not only the licensee's name but the trading names under which they operate. I am sure the Minister of State's officials can point him in that direction to allow for an amendment that captures all of the intentions of previous sections of the Bill.

We will seek advice. I wish to make a comment before I call Deputy Howlin because I have to step out at half past. I have the height of regard for Deputy McGrath and I particularly respect the enthusiasm and vigour he has for the issues he raises but his criticism of the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, was a little unfair - very unfair, maybe - and personalised.

When Ministers and Ministers of State come in here to advocate legislation, they do so as part of their shared collective responsibility for what they are doing. Deputy McGrath is a fair man and I do not think it is fair to personalise this at the Minister of State. I call Deputy Howlin.

I think the Ceann Comhairle for giving more than a little latitude here because it is a very complicated Bill and we are dealing with a very broad spectrum of amendments from the Seanad, many of which relate to issues that were touched upon here and are probably not strictly proper to be dealt with.

The first issue I intended to raise was on casinos and private members' clubs and the Minister of State has answered that very clearly.

The second question I wish to raise is related to that. As I understand it, the 1956 Act outlawed certain types of gambling in a casino in a roundabout way in that under the definition in the 1956 Act, there had to be an equal opportunity for all players. In other words, the house could not have an edge or an advantage in any gambling game. For example, in roulette, the number zero is on the wheel but is not on the table for people to gamble on it. Zero is neither red nor black. It is neither odd nor even. The house, therefore, has an advantage because that number cannot come up. With numbers one to 36 on the wheel, the actual advantage is of 2.7%. That is unlawful under the current definition. The wording of the definition the Minister of State is now proposing in section 137 is different. It provides that "where the participants in a game include the licensee of the licence concerned, the chance that the licensee has as a participant of winning the game and the chance that all other participants in the game have of winning the game, are equal." That is the definition that the Minister of State is now inserting. The new rule is similar to the old one in many respects but is different in wording. Again, I seek clarification from the Minister of State. Perhaps his officials might look at that. Can he explain if the current definition is being replaced with these new words in order to mean something different or is it the same intention, where the same rule is to apply under this different wording? I will not go into the specifics of this but the issue is that there is not an edge or an advantage to the house in gambling, and that all participants, including the house as a participant, has an equal chance of winning. Is that the net intention of these words?

Addressing Deputy Howlin's question first, that very much is the intention. As time has moved on, language has changed slightly in the drafting, but that very much carries the same intention as the previous legislation, which is that they remain equal.

We are satisfied that the definition of "relevant content" is that they cannot advertise the activity or the licensee, and that would include any promotion of the licensee itself. This would include any promotion of the licensee and would include any material associated with the promotion of the of the licensee. We are satisfied that would include the circumstances outlined by Deputy Doherty.

On the appointments to the board, our view is that the Bill provides that the members of the board must have experience in gambling and of the pathology of gambling. It is felt that it is broad enough to cover lived experience. In addition, in organising the public appointment system campaign to select members of the authority, the Minister will have input into the selection criteria for members of the authority. I expect that lived experience would be very much part of that.

Deputy McGrath is gone but I can assure him that we have met with all stakeholders on a regular basis. An extraordinary amount of work has been done to ensure that horseracing and greyhound tracks can continue as heretofore. We have to protect those industries while at the same time ensuring all of the relevant regulations will apply around child protection, anti-money laundering, etc. The only thing we would not accede to was allowing racing channels to show, not advertising about horseracing, but hard gambling ads around poker machines and casinos, etc. An exception was sought to allow those TV stations do that but that would have driven a cart and four through what we are doing here with regard to the advertising ban that was recommended by the all-party Oireachtas committee.

The question of charitable and philanthropic organisations was discussed by the all-party Oireachtas committee at the time. It was pointed out that gambling is involved. No exception was recommended by the Oireachtas committee, which had all every party on it. We wanted to make the amendments but the real challenge and difficulty was not in making exceptions for charities and sporting organisations, but in ensuring they could not be taken advantage of. We are all familiar with the alcohol 0.0 situation. It was quite a challenge but we got there. I thank my officials who have ensured that the drafting is so tight that a gambling organisation will not be able to set itself up as a charity. Equally, some nefarious actor will not be able to come along and set itself up as a charity for nothing other than purposes that would enable it to advertise gambling. We are satisfied that we have been able to put protections in place to protect the charity and sporting sector. The points were well made by Sinn Féin and by others on the charity and sporting sectors. It was never the case that we did not want to make those exceptions, but the question of how to make them was quite challenging for drafting purposes.

I do not accept that the Minister of State's position is the correct one. There is a simple fix for this and it relates to the definition of "relevant content". The definition of "relevant content" is a gaming activity such as a lottery. One will not be allowed to advertise that on social media to non-subscribers and non-account holders unless one has a philanthropic or charity licence. The Bill also provides that one will not be able to advertise the licensee of the gambling licence by name, but it is only the name of the licensee that is covered here. Section 146 provides that one cannot advertise "relevant content". I gave the Minister of State the definition of "relevant content" which included those two things. Rightly, he is now exempting charities and philanthropic bodies. He says they are exempt from this on the condition that do not advertise the licensee's name or trading name, or part of the name or trading name. That is a correct definition. The charities will not be able to do that. When they put up their own notice to raise money for a local club, they will not be able to name "Paddy Power" or "Power Bets" or anything like that, to use Paddy Power as an example. I am telling the Minister of State that the definition of "relevant content" in the legislation before us will not stop Paddy Power advertising Paddy Power to anybody over the age of 18 as long as the licensee is not in the name of Paddy Power. That is a serious problem. I use Paddy Power as an example, but it is unlikely that it would be Paddy Power. There are many of these gambling entities. This is a serious issue. The Minister of State has rightly addressed it with regard to philanthropic licences which capture not just the licensee but also the name or trading name, or part of the name or trading name, of the licensee. We need to ensure that this - exactly - is captured in "relevant content" because it is not in "relevant content" at the minute. If it is not in "relevant content", they will advertise in this way.

What does this mean? As it stands, it means that Paddy Power or any other such gambling company will not be able to go on social media and flood you with advertisements to win this, that or the other. It does mean, however, that they will be able to advertise their brand in an unlimited way. There will be regulations here, but these entities will not be captured in this section of the Bill in a way that prevents them advertising a part of their trading name, their trading name, their logo or their brand name. That is not what is intended here. I know that the Minister of State says that it is captured but I put it to him very strongly that it is not captured. We know how long it will take to fix this. In the meantime, there could be a huge amount of advertising penetration by people trying to get brand awareness and all of the rest of that.

I believe there is a simple amendment to this and I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to bring it forward here. It has been done in the past where it can be done. I urge the Minister of State to do that.

We are satisfied that the current definition does, in fact, cover it.

Seanad amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 62 relates to the social impact fund and inserts a new section into the Bill that provides for the possible refund of moneys transferred into the social impact fund from a licensee that transferred the balance on an account that had not been used for 13 months, and where the licensee, despite best efforts, could not make the refund to the account holder. The social impact fund is a hugely important piece of this legislation.

Debate ended quite quickly in the Seanad on the last occasion so I just want to take an opportunity to acknowledge the work of Senators Shane Cassells, Mark Wall and Joe O'Reilly who have all championed gambling legislation from the Seanad.

An enormous amount of work has gone into this legislation. I, too, commend those Senators in the Seanad, my colleague, Senator Mark Wall, in particular and the other Senators mentioned, for a very concerted effort to get this done. Senator Wall made it clear to me today that he wanted this enacted before this Dáil ended. I also commend the Minister of State and his officials on dealing with a very complicated issue. As I said in the beginning, this is a far from perfect Bill but it is a very good framework that will significantly impact on a tremendously important social issue.

Given the alternative debt resolution procedures that have been introduced, such as personal insolvency arrangements for example, this amendment widened the grounds for ineligibility for appointment or retention as an officer of the authority to include any other arrangements or compositions with creditors.

With regard to amendments Nos. 64, to 67, inclusive, on advice from the Office of the Attorney General it was considered that the provision as initially drafted was too broad and these amendments narrow the scope and application accordingly.

It relates to restrictions on the rights under data protection regulations and the Freedom of Information Act. Given the advice of the Attorney General it was considered that the provisions initially drafted were way too broad. As a result, the amendments were needed to reduce the application of that particular legislation as it applied to the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The Attorney General's advice was to narrow it.

It is just the language. The Attorney General's interpretation is that the original language was simply too broad in what it would encompass. It does not go into definitions of what is or is not included. The Attorney General's view is that it would simply bring too much into it in the context of the legislation.

I will speak on these amendments together. The national lottery currently operates under the national lottery Act 2013. Its activities are regulated by the Office of the Regulator of the national lottery. This also includes extensive oversight of concerning the sale and supply of equipment to the holder of the licence to operate the national lottery and of its agents. In this context, amendments Nos. 72 and 73 to sections 68 and 69 of the Bill were necessary to ensure the Bill does not affect the continued supply of services and equipment to the national lottery. 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 this Bill.

Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 are minor technical amendments to ensure the correct terminology is used when referring to those operating the national lottery.

Amendments Nos. 77 to 84, inclusive, restructured, reorganised and clarified some of the language and terminology in section 83. In particular, amendment No. 84 reframed and moved the provisions of the then section 131 into section 83, referring to betting licences and for clarity and visibility to continue to allow the authority to prescribe what activities and events may not be the subject of betting. A practical example of this would be prohibiting bets on an incident at a sporting event that could lead to the commission of a criminal offence.

Amendments Nos. 85 to 91, inclusive, are technical amendment connected to the insertion of the new section 111 in the Bill and these amendments will allow licensees to add additional premises to their licence, rather than a separate licence for each individual premises.

Seanad amendment No. 78:

Section 83: In page 66, line 15, to delete "paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)" and substitute "paragraphs (a) and (c)".

Seanad amendment No. 87:

Section 84: In page 67, line 16, to delete “a premises” and substitute “one or more premises”.

Amendments Nos. 97 to 114, inclusive, amendments Nos. 123 to 139, inclusive, and amendment No. 173 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendments Nos. 97, 105 to 109, inclusive, 123 to 127, inclusive, 129, 130, 134, 138 and 139 are all either technical amendments to address minor drafting issues, numbering or linguistic changes for clarity and are not substantive in nature.

Amendments Nos. 98 to 104, inclusive, 110 to 114, inclusive, 128, 131 to 133, inclusive, 135 to 137, inclusive, and 173 are related to the application process for gambling licences and the ability of the authority to determine applications. This group of amendments provides for the updated information a person must provide to the authority as part of an application in respect of a premises, particularly where an applicant wishes to allow children or ATMs on a premises or, in the case of charitable or philanthropic licensees, where they wish to sell tickets away from the premises or allow children to do so. These include the reasons for such a request. The amendments provide the authority with the discretion to grant such a request, having regard to certain factors. Amendments in this group also remove the requirement for applicants for a charitable or philanthropic licence to have to supply detailed IT information when applying for a licence, widen the information required from applicants as regards personal insolvency matters to include any other arrangements or compositions with creditors and provide for additional disclosures by licensees under the Consumer Credit Act 1995 when applying for a licence from the authority.

I thank the Deputy for his question. The original plan was to ban them altogether. We then had to make some exceptions for locations such as horse racing tracks, where people may take out money to buy food or whatever the case may be. If people want to have a machine on the premises, they will need to make a separate application to the authority. The authority will then take everything into consideration. I certainly do not expect to see banklink machines - I am showing my age by calling them banklink machines - in a bookie's office or somewhere like that. However, the authority needs the capacity to allow such machines in places like horse racing tracks. The authority, the regulator, will be taking things into consideration in those circumstances. As I have said, these are the circumstances where we would expect to see them allowed but they would generally not be allowed.

The Attorney General has advised that we could not ban them for specific locations and nowhere else. That would be open to challenge. We had to take that into consideration. As I have said, I certainly do not want to see them in bookies' offices, casinos or anywhere like that. I have no difficulty with them being on racetracks or greyhound tracks, provided they are not in the betting area, so that people can take out money to buy food or whatever the case may be. People have argued either way with regard to bingo. For the most part, bingo is a social outlet. The advice from the Attorney General is that we have to allow a certain amount of flexibility. Taking all things into consideration, I expect to see them in very rare circumstances.

Seanad amendment No. 100:

Section 93: In page 74, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“(j) where the application is for a gambling licence for a charitable or philanthropic purpose under section 112 or 113 and, in addition to providing a gambling activity for a charitable or philanthropic purpose from one or more premises in the State to a person who attends at the premises to participate in the activity—

(i) it is proposed to provide the activity off the premises through the licensee or another person where that other person is an employee, servant or agent of that licensee, a statement to that effect and the reasons why it is considered necessary, and

(ii) where it is proposed that an employee, servant or agent of that licensee may, for the purposes of subparagraph (i), include a child, the reasons for such inclusion;”.

Seanad amendment No. 105:

Section 94: In page 76, line 24, to delete “section 93” and substitute “section 93(1)”.

Seanad amendment No. 110:

Section 95: In page 77, line 26, to delete “The information and documentation referred to in section 93(h)” and substitute the following:

“(1) The information and documentation referred to in section 93(1)(h)(i), 99(1)(e)(i) and 111(2)”.

I propose to take amendments Nos. 115 to 120, inclusive, together. Amendments Nos. 115 to 118, inclusive, provide that, when assessing whether a premises is suitable to provide gambling activities from, the authority must consult with the relevant local fire safety authority where the premises is situated and must inspect the premises before making a determination in respect of a gambling licence.

It also provided for a reciprocal requirement for local authorities to engage with the authority.

Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 provided for the ability for the authority to determine whether children or ATMs may be allowed on premises and provide the authority with the ability to impose conditions such as to protect children, restrict the number of ATMs or require them to be located away from areas where gaming takes place, for example.

Amendments Nos. 140 to 142, inclusive, clarified the application process and criteria for holding a once-off lottery in a calendar year. Amendment No. 143 exempted certain premises from assessment by the authority. Amendments Nos. 144 to 153, inclusive, provided for the ability of the authority to issue or renew an in-person gambling licence, having assessed a premises, the details relating to gambling activities and premises, and any additional conditions specified by the authority to be included in a licence, and for variation of a licence subject to the appropriate fee.

Amendments Nos. 154 to 156, inclusive, clarify the application process and criteria for holding a once-off lottery. Amendments Nos. 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 166 and 167 are all technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 159 and 164 provide for the ability of the authority to determine how gambling activities may be provided by a licensee, where they may be provided from and if children are permitted to act on behalf of the licensee, for example, if members or children may sell tickets on behalf of a school, club or social organisation, while amendments Nos. 160 and 165 provide that the person shall be included in a licence issued by the authority, while amendment No. 168 provides for procedural matters concerning applications to vary such licences.

I want to address this series of amendments. One of the issues we raised in previous discussions related to premises, that it would not have to be one premises and that numerous premises would be allowed so that tickets for a club lottery or school fundraiser could be on the shelf of a Chinese takeaway or local supermarket. That is important. I am not sure if the definition of "premises" allows for football pitch and I would ask the Minister of State to clarify that. I am not sure what leniency the authority will have in relation to that.

I understand that this is a referral back from the Seanad, so I assume the Minister of State does not want to change the Bill at this stage because it would have to go back to the Seanad if we made changes here. However, I wish to raise a small issue in relation to section 113 or section 118 in the reprinted version which deals with applications for philanthropic licences. It mentions a number of things that the application "shall" contain. Subsection (3)(c)(ii) provides that the application shall contain "the proposed relevant payment, the proposed winnings and the source of the winnings". That is not an issue. Obviously, the source of the winnings should be declared and the proposed winnings should be declared. The proposed winnings allows for a range of winnings on the basis of the way it is written. However, relevant payment does not provide for a range of payments. That means that every single club will have to apply separately for every single ticket type. These licences last for a year. If a club is running one draw for €2, that is fine. Some clubs, including my local club, would do a Super Bowl competition, which is a €10 ticket. That will have to be another application. It would also do a draw which is €5 that happens at a certain time in the year. The word "payments", as opposed to payment, would allow for flexibility whereby a club can say that it plans to conduct lotteries or activities that range from €2 to €10 within the year, the relevant winnings are from €500 to €5,000 or whatever they may be, and the source of the winnings is club activities and club draws. It is a very minor issue but given that it is in legislation and the word "shall" is used, I would not want a situation where clubs are doing multiple applications. At the minute, if clubs are making an application, they can put in the range and all of that. If they are going for a licence, they go to court and the courts are providing licences on that basis. That is an issue.

I have raised a concern in the past in relation to the minimum 30%. I am raising it again but I am not suggesting that it is changed because that would obviously be a more substantive change. I understand where the Minister is coming from here. If bodies are encouraging gambling activities, they need to be making sure they are getting something out of it. If they are doing a €50,000 draw and they are only making €1,000, the question is whether they should be promoting gambling in the first place. I understand that. The problem is with the phrase "30 per cent of the total relevant payments". If I was drafting this I would say a minimum of 30% or 100% of the profit. No club can state at the outset, when it runs a draw for a car or for a house, that is valued at €300,000, for example, that the club is going to make €100,000. That is what it would be stating on the application and that is serious. Nobody can say that and the club would probably be happy if it made €60,000.

There are other parts of this section that I will deal with at a later stage. I just wanted to make those points. I do not know if the Minister of State has the flexibility to deal with the issue of relevant payments. Maybe the authority will just allow that. I am not sure but it should be allowed. That is my point. It should be allowed. It should be a range and then the authority can adjudicate as to whether that is appropriate. Applicants should be able to put in a range of payments on their application.

We are at the risk here of becoming a nanny state, if we are going to be making applications for lifeblood issues that keep clubs running. National lottery sports grants were announced recently and I salute every club. They put in impeccable and professional applications. Some may have got professional advice and that costs a lot of money too but many did them on their own. They have become a dab hand at them now. They have split the bucket - the weekly lotto and many different fundraisers. Occasionally, as Deputy Doherty said, one might see draws for cars. A club near me in Ardfinnan ran a draw for a camper van early in the spring and there was a huge takeup. Is the Government going to be prescriptive so the organisation will have to say it will make a certain amount? It will make as much as the people who are selling the tickets have the energy and the time to make, and if there are people who want to support the club or organisation. There are many out there and surely to God they should not have to complete cumbersome or multiple applications. As it is, clubs and organisations have huge issues trying to get officers. The ones who are there, like myself, are long in the tooth. Not every club has young, energetic people coming along. Some have, and they are lucky, but in general, they are finding it harder to get volunteers to become members of these clubs and organisations, let alone to become chairman, secretary, or treasurer because it is cumbersome. Some clubs and organisations are limited by guarantee and there are lots of regulations and standards that they have to comply with.

Are we going to completely regulate these issues including for a simple ordinary split the bucket or things like that? There are too many applications for different types or levels of draws. It could kill the spirit of the Irish people altogether. We are renowned for looking after ourselves. We are enablers. We have the best of clubs and organisations. While some of them struggle, many of them keep going and keep working an-chrua ar fad gach lá. I am afraid this legislation will be over-reaching and we will have another quango we will need to pay homage to with requirements to make applications for every Tom, Dick and Harry thing we want to do.

Regarding premises, we are satisfied that it will allow for selling tickets around the pitch. In fairness, Deputy Doherty captured that problem in the original Bill. Deputy McGrath has called me obstinate and said that I have not accepted anything raised by other Deputies, but when Deputy Doherty spotted that we made the necessary change to address it.

Regarding multiple licences, the authority has discretion to set the form and manner of the application and the licensee can apply to vary a licence if absolutely necessary. Ultimately it is one licence per type of activity, but it can operate multiples of the same activity under the same licence, for example, multiple licences. I give the example of bingo. It is intended that the authority would issue one licence per operator for each type of gambling activity, in this case bingo. The licence will set out the activities that can be provided pursuant to that licence for bingo. Each individual game of bingo will be subject to the maximum limit which is currently €5,000 per game.

Furthermore, the Bill was amended on Committee Stage in Seanad Éireann so that the relevant activities specified by the authority may also be provided from one or more premises within the State. The amendment also provides that a licensee may apply to the authority to add additional premises to a licence for activities. These amendments reinforce the policy that a single licence, but for multiple activities and premises, should be issued by the authority. Basically it is a lottery licence but the organisation can run multiple lotteries if that is what the authority permits it to do under that one licence.

I understand that and I understand that the authority has flexibility with the regulations it has under this Bill to stipulate what is required for the application. However, the legislation here states that it must include the proposed relevant payment. Is it the Minister of State's view that the authority can vary that? I will give an example. Unfortunately my local club held its last bingo just a couple of weeks ago. It is no longer a thing, but it used to operate a bingo. Under this new legislation it will need to apply for a bingo licence. It would then also apply for a lottery licence. In the scenario I outlined where it is doing a 50:50 draw, that is a €2 draw. However, the spot the ball or who is going to score first in the Super Bowl is a €10 draw. Under this legislation my understanding is that it would require two different licences for that. If it did its €5 draw which takes place in the summer, it would need a third licence to do three different types of lotteries. That is the problem and where it becomes bureaucratic. I accept there is provision in this legislation to vary the activity but these clubs have enough paperwork to do. I do not know if there is discretion to talk to the authority and advise it that it should allow for relevant payments. I think that would deal with the issue. A club may propose to carry out a number of lotteries and, as the Minister of State has said, multiple lotteries are allowed. However, multiple lotteries under this application would have to cover that it is €10 for the lottery and outline the winnings. If the club wants to vary the payments, I am not sure that would be allowed under a single application. That is my concern over this section.

The Interpretation Acts provide that reference to the singular also covers the plural. Therefore, "payment" and "payments" mean the same thing within the legislation. It is the same with "licence" and "licences". The bingo sector has raised that consistently over recent months and we have sought to clarify it for that sector as well. The singular meaning plural and plural meaning singular cover the payments and also cover the bingo sector with its licences and bingo cards as well.

Amendments Nos. 174, 178 and 179 are technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 cover specified changes in licensees' information that must be notified to the authority. Amendment No. 177 provides that a commercial licence is granted subject to compliance with certain conditions. Amendment No. 178 provides that the requirement to hold segregated customer accounts applies to both online and in-person participants. Importantly, amendment No. 180 ensures that no participant, including the licensee, will have an unfair advantage over other participants in a gambling activity. Amendment No. 181 is procedural. Amendment No. 182 provides obligations on licensees not to engage, permit or employ a child to act on a licensee's behalf except where authorised by the authority in the case of a charitable or philanthropic licensee.

I just make this point to the Minister of State with your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle. I will not take up much time. There is a section in the Bill which prevents advertising by electronic communication. It is the main way by which people are now advertising relevant gambling activities. As the Minister of State knows, I did considerable research into these activities for Report Stage. I left the Chamber for about half an hour. I have had three different messages from three different companies inviting me to take part in gambling activity. I am again raising the definition of "relevant content". These companies will not be allowed to advertise a gaming activity, but they will be allowed to advertise, for example, to enter a competition to win ten Oasis tickets and two nights in Dublin.

There will be tens of thousands of people who will apply for it. Under the section, as long as you have opted in - which you will do to enter the competition - and they have your mobile phone number, they can advertise as much as they wish to you on your mobile phone. That is not the intention of this Bill. It should not happen and the way to ban it is to deal with the issue of relevant content.

This Bill is important legislation but the first thing that companies will do is try to find a way around it. I am telling the Minister of State that, as somebody who operates a licence and will operate a licence under this legislation, the way to do this if I was not able to get a licence is to advertise the company and competitions that are appealing to the public, and ask them to sign up to the terms and conditions - tick the box, give me your mobile phone number and then I can text you as many times as I wish, inviting you to take part in a competition. That should not happen. In the past few minutes, I have been contacted by companies offering €60,000, €40,000 and cars from Ford, Range Rover and BMW, and there are loads of other ones. This is how-----

It is not just that. It is like, "Win tonight's life-changing prize of €250,000 or a brand-new four-bedroom house". The problem is, as I said, when we look at the intention. Any company will do this, offering Oasis tickets or something else of value. It is not gambling; it is entering a competition. It is free, there is no price to enter it and therefore it does not fall under this legislation. If they use their brand and the brand is not the same as the licensee, they are able to do this. They are able to actually put money behind this on social media. They are able to get your telephone number and get you to tick the box and then under that section they are able to text you as much as they want. It is a major problem in the legislation because that is what is going to happen with this.

Mobile phone text messaging is the way they are going to do it because you cannot do it on Facebook under the legislation here. You cannot advertise gaming activity to specific individuals because of the conditions here, and the fact that they have to have an account. There is no way you can target people on Facebook like that but you can when you have their mobile phone numbers.

Again, I appeal to the Minister of State at this very late stage. There is a very simple fix to this to prevent what will be a tsunami of this type of activity, and that is to include in the definition of "relevant content" not just the name of the licensee but also the trademark, trading name, logo or partial name of the licensee. I say that strongly and in good faith. I know the difficulty in terms of the late stage of this legislation but I am telling the Minister of State the consequences of that as well.

As I said earlier, we are satisfied that they cannot advertise either the licensee or the activity, and that will cover most circumstances. In addition to that, the authority has the power to make regulations relating to advertising in addition to explicit dedicated sections in respect of gambling advertising. If people are in a situation where they have consented to something, they will always be able to withdraw that consent at any time.

I will finish on this. As I said, I understand the predicament and I would argue that maybe if we were on an earlier Stage, the Minister of State may have taken this on board. It is a very serious issue. We are at a very late stage of this legislation and I know the Minister of State will not take the amendment on board but I am raising it because I know others will be looking in and the authority will have powers under regulations.

It is crucial that this issue, which is a massive loophole in this legislation, is closed down by the authority. If it is not being done by the primary legislation, as it should be done in a very simple way, it must be closed down by the authority because, otherwise, there will be an unlimited amount of this. It is already happening. This is how these companies do it. How does a company get new subscribers? It is through appealing gambling activity, but it is also through free entries, free this, free that and all the rest - competitions where you do not have to pay anything. Why? It is because when they get the subscribers, they can target them over and over again.

I urge the Minister of State to consider this in the implementation of this legislation. When does he expect to give effect to the legislation? I ask him to speak to the authority and raise concerns that have been raised on the floor in respect of practices that may emerge from the clamping down on many other activities as a result of this legislation.

I hear the Deputy's concerns and I understand those concerns are very much genuine. Even if the Deputy is correct, which we do not necessarily accept, the authority does have significant regulatory powers to make regulations to control advertising. That amendment was one of the key amendments we brought in through this legislation. There is that fallback position where the authority, acting on its duties under this legislation, can make further regulations to restrict the types of advertising being provided.

I will discuss amendments Nos. 200 and 201 together. These clarify that it shall be an offence to offer a targeted inducement to a person or a specific group of people and that offers or promotions to the public must comply with any regulations made under this section. Such regulations 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 regulations shall be an offence and subject to prosecution.

Amendment No. 211 is a restatement and tweaking of the section dealing with privileged legal material.

Amendment No. 212 inserted a new section into the Bill to provide that the authorised officer of the authority may request copies of records and information from certain officials under other Acts where the information or records are needed in the performance of their duties and a subsequent power to process any information received.

Amendment No. 214 is a consequential amendment recommended by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, while amendments Nos. 213, 215 and 217 to 222, inclusive, were necessary minor drafting or technical amendments.

On amendment No. 216, as per the earlier amendment concerning bankruptcy, given the different variations of debt resolution procedures that have been introduced, a reference solely to bankruptcy is insufficient in this section, and this amendment widened the scope.

The Ceann Comhairle is going very quickly. We want to facilitate that, but we did deal with the transitional provisions in amendment No. 228 previously. Will the Minister of State indicate when it is intended to bring various sections into force? When will the Bill be enacted? Will it be before the end of the year? I know the authority is set up, but are there certain sections he expects to bring into force first?

Can he provide any clarity on this? Obviously, we have transitional provisions under this set of amendments.

To state the obvious, we intend to enact it as quickly as possible. As the Deputy pointed out, we have a CEO designate for the gambling regularly authority of Ireland and significant money has been spent on setting it up. It would become quite embarrassing quite quickly, quite frankly, if the Bill was not commenced as quickly as possible. I cannot give specific deadlines or dates, but I can assure the Deputy the Bill will not be left sitting on a shelf. The CEO designate, Ms Anne Marie Caulfield, is very anxious that we commence the provisions of the Bill as quickly as possible. Some parts of the Bill will be sequential, out of necessity, but there is no reason it will not be enacted as quickly as possible.

When does the Minister of State intend to enact the Bill? I am concerned that every authority we set up has to have the brass plate on the wall, plush offices, staff, a CEO, perhaps a deputy CEO, and board members that cost a lot of money. None of the members of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board had seagoing experience. The mushrooming of these quangos is out of control. The rain falling tonight is heavy. The Minister of State must be spreading some kind of nitrogen because these organisations are mushrooming. They turn into entities that we cannot deal with.

I refer to ordinary people, such as small horse traders, charities and clubs, who will have to grapple with these organisations. I do not know if the Minister of State helps many people in his office with forms and applications; I am sure he does. We are making things more cumbersome. We have regulators for everything, but there is very little regulation going on in many areas. As I said, many such organisations are useless, toothless and fruitless, but the Government wants to keep jobs for the boys and create more and more organisations. I do not know how much this is costing the hard-working people of this country. Many are of no use. Some of them are okay, but this has gotten out of control. There are CEOs going from one to the other for promotion. They are only interested in their careers, not in supporting communities.

I can assure the Deputy that this regulatory authority will not be toothless or fruitless. It will be a very powerful regulatory authority. It will regulate an industry that we estimate is worth €6 billion. We are not sure of the figure, because, unfortunately, we do not have proper regulation in this area, and that is what we are addressing in the Bill. The regulatory authority will be funded by the industry, by way of levies. The impact on the taxpayer once it is up and running should be zero. It will not require any Exchequer funding. It is necessary for what is a significant industry, which has a very real impact on the lives of people across the country.

-----if not before. Do we expect to see any of the Bill enacted before February? Can the Minister of State give any indication regarding, for example, the advertisement of relevant content on social media? Does he expect the provisions relating to that to be enacted within six months? I am not asking for a date, because I understand there is a bit of work to be done. Can the Minister of State give us any indication of the timeline involved? Does he expect to have all of the provisions of the Bill enacted within the year? I refer, in particular, to those areas addressing advertising. It is important to provide a bit of clarity regarding when the Minister of State would like to see those provisions enacted. I understand there will be some hoops to go through. It is a substantial Bill which covers a lot of areas. It is important there is some indication given in respect of the key specific areas.

On the enforcement side, in the Bill we have tied almost everything to the licence. If someone is in breach of advertising regulations, they can lose their licence as well as face serious fines, etc. Even if we commenced the provisions relating to advertising next week, that will not be relevant until licences are issued. There is an element of all duck and no dinner, to a certain degree. The approach means the Bill will be far more robust in its enforcement mechanism. I will start commencing the relevant sections of the Bill as quickly as possible. We need to get a board in place as quickly as possible, and there is no reason we cannot start putting it together very quickly. I expect all the provisions of the legislation to be enacted within the year. That would certainly be the aim. We can never be certain about these things.

Seanad amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment agreed to.

A significant amount of work has gone into this legislation. I want to thank my officials, including the team working on it at the moment and the previous members of the team. An extraordinary amount of work has gone into what is an extremely complex legislation which not only regulates a massive industry that has largely gone unregulated, but deals with the public health perspective and ensures the relevant sections are there to protect the public and design the legislation in such a way as to ensure there is strong primary legislation with flexibility for the regulatory authority to make recommendations to the Minister and change regulations as the industry moves and changes in terms of how it may target people. It is a huge piece of legislation and I want to thank all the officials in the Department of Justice.

I also want to thank the former and current Attorneys General, Paul Gallagher and Rossa Fanning, the teams in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the advisory council for their extraordinary work. I want to mention the former Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton, who did a huge amount of foundational work on this legislation, for which he gets very little credit on days like today. I want to mention Deputy Stanton and his team as I worked with him at the time.

I want to mention the three Senators who championed this legislation from the very start, namely, Senators Shane Cassells, Mark Wall and Joe O'Reilly. They kept this legislation in focus in their parties. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for guiding this legislation.