David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to be in the Seanad for the debate on this important legislation. As I said on Second Stage, the Bill seeks to address certain deficiencies with regard to the conduct of gaming and lottery activities regulated under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. Pending a comprehensive reform of gambling laws, which we are working on, the Bill proposes a number of interim reform measures for the licensing and regulation of gaming and lottery activities covered by the 1956 Act.

Section 1 states that the principal Act is the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. I have tabled a later amendment to amend the Betting Act 1931, and it should be subsequently added to the Acts referred to if my amendment is carried. I do not believe it is correct to add to the definition of principal Act in the way proposed by the Senator. The Office of the Attorney General is supportive of that view. There is a risk of uncertainty and poor drafting practice, I am told. There is reference to the Betting Acts in the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, which did not require its mention in the definition of the principal Act in section 1. Such an addition as proposed by the Senator would serve no purpose, would be superfluous from a drafting perspective, and would give rise to uncertainty, and I am sure none of us wants that. I ask the Senator to consider withdrawing the amendment.

I want to make a number of points on amendment No. 12. I have no function in respect of the national lottery, its regulation or licensing. That is a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform under the National Lottery Act 2013. The Minister did not provide in that legislation for any prohibition on licensed remote bookmakers offering bets on the outcome of the national lottery draw on Wednesdays and Saturdays. My Department's role in regard to licensed bookmakers is limited to the provision of certificates of fitness for applicants for bookmaker's licences, remote bookmaker's licences and for remote betting intermediaries. The licences are issued by the Revenue Commissioners. I am not aware that any conditions are imposed in those licences as to the nature of the bets that such licensees might offer.

Therefore, I must take my guidance in this matter from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, who engaged on this particular point with Deputy Burton in the other House on 5 March last. The Minister noted on that occasion that there is no particular evidence that the offers of bookmakers have any significant impact on the sales of national lottery products. I note that the turnover of the national lottery increased from €670 million in 2015 to €750 million in 2016, to €800 million in 2017, and to €805 million in 2018. This certainly does not suggest much impact. Senators cited the contribution of the national lottery to good causes each year. This is to be welcomed, although such contribution is a critical consideration in having the national lottery in the first place.

The European Lotto Betting Association, ELBA, members, myLotto24 and Lottoland, commissioned a report by a leading economic analyst, Mr. Jim Power, entitled An Assessment of the Online Gambling Market in Ireland and its Impact on Good Causes Funding by the National Lottery. Contrary to the position adopted by the national lottery licence holder, the report found no evidence that lottery betting, either online or via retail betting shops, was undermining good causes funding or that it threatened it in the long term. The report found that there are only six lottery betting providers licensed and active as remote bookmakers in Ireland. Based on the 2017 performance figures provided by the three leading ELBA members licensed and active in Ireland, their total combined draw-based betting turnover was €1.4 million, a mere 0.25% of the €559 million draw-based sales turnover achieved by the national lottery in the same period. Rather than damaging good causes funding, the report found that the long-term presence of these operators actually should have a beneficial impact by creating more competition, choice and innovation in what otherwise might be effectively a monopolised market.

The report found that a decline of €43 million, or 16%, in good causes funding from the national lottery occurred in the past decade. It was €268 million in 2008 and €225 million in 2017. The ELBA contends that to suggest that online lottery betting presents any meaningful threat to good causes funding from the national lottery is factually incorrect and that the sustainability of good causes funding requires a broader analysis, including in respect of the treatment of unclaimed prizes associated with the national lottery, which is another issue. I appreciate that the Senators may point out that this report was commissioned by an interested party, and that would be a fair observation. However, in the interests of transparency and clarity, it should also be pointed out that the text of a Bill submitted by the national lottery to my Department in 2018, the text of the National Lottery (Protection of Central Fund) Bill 2018, a Private Members' Bill initiated by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan in September 2018, and the text of amendment No. 12 are essentially the same.

The essence of the proposal from the Senators is to enhance the monopoly position of the private operator of the national lottery by ending the currently licensed possibility for licensed bookmakers, both land-based and remote, to offer bets on the outcome of the national lottery draws. Should such a proposition be accepted, I foresee legal uncertainty and potential challenges from such bookmakers. I am not aware of advice to suggest that the outcome of weekly national lottery draws are somehow sacrosanct and exempt from being bet upon.Such is the position with football matches or races. I may bet on their outcome without hindrance by the organisers of the event, and I am aware of no argument to suggest that the national lottery draw numbers are afforded some special form of intellectual property protection. A particular concern of mine would be that if this amendment were to be accepted, how long it might be before we see a suggested amendment to the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1979 to prohibit the local lotteries that support our sports clubs and community organisations. A similar argument could be made that they impact on the turnover of the national lottery. I do not believe that Senators would countenance this possibility. For the reasons I have outlined, the Government position must continue to be opposed to this proposal. The advice of the Office of the Attorney General is in agreement with this position.