Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will start with a procedural point. This Bill was announced as being approved by the Cabinet on 15 November, yet it took a full two weeks for a copy to materialise. We had pre-legislative scrutiny on detailed heads of the Bill but as we all know, the final version of a Bill can be much different. It would be better if the Government only announced Bills as being ready for approval when a full version can accompany that announcement. It would give staff time to prepare to consult stakeholders and so on. We would also be better able to field queries from constituents, as outlined by Deputy Gould, when legislation is announced. I appreciate that there is usually not a long delay but if the Government is to generate publicity off the back of a Bill, the actual wording being available is a reasonable expectation.

An overhaul of the regulation of gambling in this State is long overdue. According to the Health Research Board, HRB, an estimated 12,000 adults in Ireland are problem gamblers and a further 125,000 are considered to be at-risk gamblers. In addition, the study showed that more than one in ten men who have gambled in the last year are either at-risk or problem gamblers. This figure increases to one in five in younger cohorts. Finally, the HRB states that at-risk and problem gambling appears to be more strongly associated with poorer socioeconomic status and living in deprived areas. The risks are devastating, as we know. As elected Deputies, I am sure we are all aware of local constituents who have suffered greatly as a result of gambling, whether that is because of debt or sometimes taking their own lives.

No one is denying anyone the right to have the odd flutter on occasion. A legal and properly regulated gambling industry is important to stave off the involvement of organised crime. However, the key is regulation. The expansion of online gambling and the constant innovation of products in the sector means the State is in a race to protect the vulnerable. The regulation of online gambling, including the banning of bets at certain times, or at least the identification of patterns of betting that indicate someone is at risk, is important. The draft heads of Bill placed a number of obligations on providers in relation to this and I notice these are now absent from the Bill. The gambling exclusion register is a positive development but by the time someone has made an application, their losses could be significant. Anecdotally, we have heard of a lot of people losing money in the early hours of the morning when they are coming home and have alcohol taken.

It is not acceptable that the online operators can utilise the great amount of information they have on customers, through algorithms and so on, to infinitely expand their business without being compelled to use that information to prevent great losses being racked up, especially for those who have finite resources. That information also puts the online sector at an inherent advantage compared to the traditional retail bookmaker. A levy that reflects that would level the playing field. The work of my colleague Deputy Gould in this area, including his Private Members' Bill to ban credit card betting, should be commended. People who work in the industry have suggested that a tax levied on online deposits might also have some effect.

Public awareness and gambling addiction treatment should also be discussed alongside the Bill. The social fund is a welcome addition here but there needs to be a sea change alongside it. The treatment of gambling addiction is frequently linked to mental health. While the link is undoubtedly strong, gambling addiction is a specific issue too. We are beginning to get a handle on how to treat those with other addictions. Research into gambling addiction specifically should be the result of it. Again, this is something the Bill covers. A specific public awareness campaign free of industry influence would be important. Being "gambling aware" does little to help those with addiction. They could not be more aware of it if they tried. Supporting them in getting away from gambling is what we need to do. Supports and campaigns must be free of industry influence. The social impact fund will hopefully be a useful firewall for this.

I note that football now dominates bets placed here. Nearly all Premier League teams are dominated by the industry and betting companies. The funding to sports needs to reflect this as the social dividend from the elite levels of the game, supported by the industry, does not trickle down to the grassroots. For many local sports clubs, lotteries, bingo and even World Cup draws can be incredible fundraisers when run by clubs and leagues. We have received a few representations from bingo halls recently about their unique status. That is a subject to which we will return on Committee Stage. Regulatory costs must be borne by those most able to bear them, and smaller clubs and associations must not be completely discouraged from solid fundraising opportunities. The credit union sector, for example, has been regulated heavily, and understandably so, but we need to be mindful that regulations can have unintended consequences that we cannot foresee.

Other improvements over pre-legislative scrutiny include the removal of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's ability to reclaim surpluses from the social impact fund. The provisions around age verification look to have been improved also, as there is a current issue with some sites where gambling can proceed before age verification is complete. This is wrong. The less ambiguity there is within legislation, the better. There are a number of other issues within the Bill but we intend to cover those on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context