Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to address this series of amendments. One of the issues we raised in previous discussions related to premises, that it would not have to be one premises and that numerous premises would be allowed so that tickets for a club lottery or school fundraiser could be on the shelf of a Chinese takeaway or local supermarket. That is important. I am not sure if the definition of "premises" allows for football pitch and I would ask the Minister of State to clarify that. I am not sure what leniency the authority will have in relation to that.

I understand that this is a referral back from the Seanad, so I assume the Minister of State does not want to change the Bill at this stage because it would have to go back to the Seanad if we made changes here. However, I wish to raise a small issue in relation to section 113 or section 118 in the reprinted version which deals with applications for philanthropic licences. It mentions a number of things that the application "shall" contain. Subsection (3)(c)(ii) provides that the application shall contain "the proposed relevant payment, the proposed winnings and the source of the winnings". That is not an issue. Obviously, the source of the winnings should be declared and the proposed winnings should be declared. The proposed winnings allows for a range of winnings on the basis of the way it is written. However, relevant payment does not provide for a range of payments. That means that every single club will have to apply separately for every single ticket type. These licences last for a year. If a club is running one draw for €2, that is fine. Some clubs, including my local club, would do a Super Bowl competition, which is a €10 ticket. That will have to be another application. It would also do a draw which is €5 that happens at a certain time in the year. The word "payments", as opposed to payment, would allow for flexibility whereby a club can say that it plans to conduct lotteries or activities that range from €2 to €10 within the year, the relevant winnings are from €500 to €5,000 or whatever they may be, and the source of the winnings is club activities and club draws. It is a very minor issue but given that it is in legislation and the word "shall" is used, I would not want a situation where clubs are doing multiple applications. At the minute, if clubs are making an application, they can put in the range and all of that. If they are going for a licence, they go to court and the courts are providing licences on that basis. That is an issue.

I have raised a concern in the past in relation to the minimum 30%. I am raising it again but I am not suggesting that it is changed because that would obviously be a more substantive change. I understand where the Minister is coming from here. If bodies are encouraging gambling activities, they need to be making sure they are getting something out of it. If they are doing a €50,000 draw and they are only making €1,000, the question is whether they should be promoting gambling in the first place. I understand that. The problem is with the phrase "30 per cent of the total relevant payments". If I was drafting this I would say a minimum of 30% or 100% of the profit. No club can state at the outset, when it runs a draw for a car or for a house, that is valued at €300,000, for example, that the club is going to make €100,000. That is what it would be stating on the application and that is serious. Nobody can say that and the club would probably be happy if it made €60,000.

There are other parts of this section that I will deal with at a later stage. I just wanted to make those points. I do not know if the Minister of State has the flexibility to deal with the issue of relevant payments. Maybe the authority will just allow that. I am not sure but it should be allowed. That is my point. It should be allowed. It should be a range and then the authority can adjudicate as to whether that is appropriate. Applicants should be able to put in a range of payments on their application.

See this speech in context