Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

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 The Government addressed the charity issue somewhat on Committee Stage and then our amendments were withdrawn following further discussion with the Department, sports clubs, GAA clubs and other community organisations that would still have to register to market their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.

See this speech in context