James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Ó Ríordáin for tabling amendment No. 9, which raises a very important point about the future licensing and regulation of private members' clubs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that private members' clubs come within the scope of the Bill and that the authority would regulate such operations. I can confirm that such clubs will be included under the Bill, I will bring forward amendments to that effect when the Bill is being progressed in the Seanad.

At present, private members' clubs, where they provide gambling activities, are regulated under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Act 2021, as amended. It is my intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill in the Seanad in order to provide for detailed, transitional and safer provisions concerning multiple Acts and for consequential amendments to other enactments, as well as for the revocation of all necessary statutory instruments. These will include transitional measures around that particular Act. Operators of private members' clubs will come within the scope of the Bill and within the remit of the authority. There will be no loopholes or special treatment for private members' clubs. Like other operators, they will be required to apply for licences from the authority and will be subject to the regulatory measures provided in the Bill.

I fully agree with the import of the Deputy's amendment. However, I ask him to withdraw it. I am happy discuss the matter further with him, but we are going to introduce amendments to ensure that what he is seeking to do will be covered by the legislation. We are working with the Office of the Attorney General to get the wording right

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, and the rationale behind them, raise a number of extremely important matters that I am happy to address. The effect of these amendments would be to provide that the Bill would not apply to charities registered under the 2009 Act and that such charities would not be subject to regulation by the authority. As previously stated, the Government and I recognise and appreciate the hard work and the services provided by charities across the State. Their good works and contributions to society is immeasurable and incalculable. Every one of us and our families have benefited from their hard work in some way or other. I understand the concerns of those in the sector and those raised by the Deputies on their behalf. Stakeholder engagement is an important aspect of informing and developing new legislation. Hearing the views of all stakeholders in respect of legislative proposals that will affect them is a key aspect of a robust, transparent and democratic legislative process. In that context, I met with 14 individual organisations from the charity sector and with the Charities Institute Ireland last February to hear their views on the Bill. I have also received correspondence from more than 40 charities about the Bill. I am aware of the concerns. Furthermore, senior officials from my Department met with representatives from the charity sector in August. My officials have also met with representatives of other non-charitable, philanthropic organisations in March.

The Government is not equating the charity sector with commercial gambling operators. It is important to note that charities and other organisations are already subject to regulation under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 in circumstances where they operate and promote lotteries as part of their fundraising model. The Bill before the House is a direct continuation of the existing policy and the measures, albeit modernised, provided in the 1956 Act. I also accept that charities are regulated under Charities Act 2009. Not all charities rely on gambling activities as part their fundraising model. The charities that do provide gambling activities must remain properly regulated in that regard.

The exclusion of the charity sector from the provisions of the Bill would result in a removal of safeguards and protections with which the sector has complied for close to 70 years. In the case of gambling we must regulate the activity irrespective of who provides it. In order that there is no confusion, I assure Deputies that neither the Government nor I are equating the charity sector with bad actors or with being involved in criminality. Unfortunately, however, we all know there are rare but highly damaging examples where some persons abused the status of their organisation as charities for the purposes of self gain. This is a sad but thankfully rare occurrence. Many of us in this Chamber and in the Seanad will have had the unpleasant experience of sitting on various committees looking into how and why such situations happen, and how we can put safeguards in place to prevent them from happening again.

We are morally and legally obliged as legislators to ensure that somebody cannot operate and offer gambling activities under the guise of being a charity for the benefit of criminal or other non-charitable activities. It is with this in mind that I have placed such a strong emphasis on establishing the beneficial ownership and identifying key personnel who could be named as licensees under the Bill. It is important that charities and their activities, as well as regulated gambling, are also seen to be well regulated to ensure public confidence in them.

As stated, many of the provisions of the Bill are carried over from the 1956 Act, with which the sector is already compliant. However, the effect of the Deputies' amendments, alongside the repeal of the 1956 Act, would be to remove all regulation insofar as it relates to gambling in the sector. It would effectively result in a type of wild-west scenario whereby anyone could operate as a charity, without regulation and without limitation or accountability. As legislators, we are obliged to ensure proper controls are in place to protect the wonderful work carried out by the charities and to prevent those that would masquerade as genuine charities from damaging the entire sector. This is a hugely important factor. We would be remiss in our obligations if we did not do as I have outlined. I am aware that such consequences are not the Deputies' intention, but that would be the result of the amendments. It would mean the deregulation of an entire sector with regard to the operation and promotion of gambling activities, and a removal of safeguards and protections that the charity sector have complied with for over 70 years.

As mentioned earlier, I have had extensive engagement with the sector and I have listened to their concerns. I brought forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage to address some of those concerns. I have clarified that the prohibition on sponsorship events does not apply to the charitable and philanthropic licensees. I removed the maximum relevant payment limits where gambling activities are provided under a charitable and philanthropic licence. I understand the sector has concerns about the advertising watershed, which was the result of the unanimous recommendation of the cross-party Joint Committee on Justice in its pre-legislative scrutiny report. This watershed was recommended to protect children from the widespread proliferation of gambling advertising. It does not mean that charitable and philanthropic licensees will be forbidden from advertising before the watershed. The watershed will not hinder or prevent them from advertising to raise awareness of their activities or to fundraise. They can still advertise, seek donations, ask for support and promote their fund raising activities in a general manner. The watershed only applies to advertising of gambling activities.

Similarly, the Bill does not include a blanket prohibition on branded merchandise for licensees. A charitable and philanthropic licensee can still have its fund raising campaigns and can still seek donations and give out branded merchandise. The prohibition only applies where the merchandise advertises a gambling activity or includes that licensee's trademark, emblem, marketing image or logo by reference to which a relevant gambling activity is being marketed or provided, and where charities themselves state that people do not associate them with gambling. The wording in 142(6) reflects that assertion.

See this speech in context