James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 93:

In page 121, to delete lines 13 to 37 and substitute the following: “Application to open gambling account with licensee of remote gambling licence

161. (1) A person who has attained the age of 18 years may apply to a licensee of a remote gambling licence to open a gambling account for the person with the licensee.

(2) An application referred to in subsection (1) shall be made to a licensee of a remote gambling licence in such form and manner, and be accompanied by such documentation, as may be specified by the Authority.

(3) A licensee of a remote gambling licence shall not open a gambling account for a person who has made an application to the licensee unless—

(a) the person has attained the age of 18 years, and

(b) the licensee concerned has verified, in accordance with the means specified under subsection (4) or prescribed under subsection (5)—

(i) the identity of the person, and

(ii) that the person has attained the age of 18 years.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), a licensee of a remote gambling licence verifies, for the purposes of subsection (3)(b), the identity and age of the person who has made the application concerned where—

(a) the person provides the licensee with—

(i) a copy of a document that specifies the name, address and date of birth of the person and contains photo identification of that person, or

(ii) a copy of a document that specifies the name and date of birth of the person and contains photo identification of that person together with a copy of 2 relevant documents confirming the address of that person,

and

(b) the licensee is satisfied that the document or documents provided to the licensee in accordance with paragraph (a) relate to that person and confirm that that person has attained the age of 18 years.

(5) The Authority may prescribe additional means by which a licensee may verify the matters referred to in subsection (3)(b).

(6) A licensee of a remote gambling licence who fails to comply with subsection (3) is guilty of an offence and is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years, or both.

(7) In this section, “relevant document” means a document issued within the previous 6 months being either a utility bill, an insurance policy or a document issued by the

Revenue Commissioners or a Department of State.”.

With regard to amendment No. 93, on review of section 161 regarding the opening of gambling accounts some relatively minor issues were identified and this amendment clarifies the situation. The current requirement in subsection (3)(a) that the applicant must supply a "copy of a document that specifies the applicant’s name, address and date of birth and contains [their] photo ..." is too narrow. For example, a passport would have a name, date of birth and photo but no proof of address. This has been widened to include an alternative option of supplying a copy of a document specifying the applicant's name and date of birth and containing photo identification, together with a copy of two relevant documents confirming the applicant's address, with relevant documents being defined in subsection (8) as including recent utility bills, insurance policies or Government-issued documents.

The purpose of amendment No. 94 is to address an unintended consequence in the drafting of section 169 and to clarify the scope and application of the section. As published, section 169 of the Bill prohibits any holder of an in-person gambling licence from permitting a child to enter or be on premises in which a relevant gambling activity is or may be provided pursuant to the licence concerned. While this seems a common sense protection in respect of children and gambling, that is, not to let them on a licensed premises where gambling is or may be offered, the Bill, as currently drafted, has one unintended consequence. In short, the wording of the section, as drafted, refers to "enter or be on a premises in which a relevant gambling activity is or may be provided pursuant to the gambling licence concerned". This could potentially prohibit children from attending places such as schools, places of worship and other local organisations, including prohibiting children from entering GAA and football clubs, schools and churches, for example, running lotteries and raffles for fundraising purposes. It could be interpreted as prohibiting children from entering or being on the premises if, for example, a raffle or lottery is being held.

The prohibition could also cause an issue, for example, where a local shop or supermarket agrees to sell tickets for local organisations or charities for raffles, and in such a situation a child would not be able to enter the shop or supermarket as the agreement to sell tickets would constitute the provision of gambling activity. While we would be extremely popular with many children around the country if we told them they could no longer go to school, that is not the policy intention of this section. Furthermore, it could potentially have a serious detrimental effect on the ability of charitable and philanthropic causes to fundraise.

In this context, I propose to amend subsection 1 to provide that the section on the prohibition shall not apply to holders of a charitable or philanthropic licences. I am amending the section to insert a new subsection 3 to provide that it shall be a defence for a person to prove that they were reasonably mistaken as to the age of a child in respect of whom the prohibition was breached.

Subsection 4 provides that the court shall consider the defence of whether a reasonable person would have concluded that a child in question was over 18 years of age, while subsection 5 provides that the standard of proof to be reached by a defendant shall be that applicable to civil proceedings, namely on the balance of probabilities.

See this speech in context