James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

With regard to the discussions, as someone who practised as a barrister for 13 years, I know it can often depend on the individual judge. Most have no interest in it but some do and, on occasion, they have looked to it.

The amendment is to ensure that what we might call brand advertising without a call to action is included. It is something that came up in a number of discussions. If someone puts up a post from Paddy Power and it is not calling on people to bet or do anything like that, but it is a brand and it is a gambling company, because it is a licence holder, it will be subject to all of the regulations and that will include advertising. That was the main reason for adjusting the advertising definition to ensure there were no ways around it. We wanted to avoid the 0.0-type situation arising with licence holders. Obviously, the regulator can continue to make recommendations and it will continue to be kept under review in any particular situation. The regulator can make further regulations or proposals on the time, place and frequency of advertising as well. We can come to that later. The intention here is to tighten it up to ensure there are no gaps, which is a good thing to do.

See this speech in context