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

I again thank Senators for their contributions and acknowledge the sincerity and seriousness by which colleagues here take this significant issue.

This Bill is interim legislation. As I have said here previously and in the other House as well, we are working hard on bringing forward a Bill to regulate the entire sector and to set up a gambling regulator. That is a very large piece of work and we expect to employ more than 100 people. Recently I held a seminar where we brought everyone associated with this area together, including those involved in the industry and in all of the problem gambling centres and treatment facilities. All of the individuals and groups made a contribution. We are listening to all of them and everybody wants a regulator. Our aim is to establish a national regulator for gambling that is underpinned by legislation and we are serious about the issue. Recently I secured permission from the Government to go ahead with the initiative and we have support for that from both Houses. We are all working together and I am open to suggestions and proposals for how to move this forward. We have also engaged with colleagues from different parts of the world that have a regulator in place.As Senators Noone, Buttimer and others have noted this particular area changes by the day with technology, artificial intelligence, the Internet and so on. It is very challenging and difficult. However, we are working hard on it and we are determined to go ahead and get it done.

Amendment No. 1 is not required as we already have a reference to the 1931 Act in a later Government amendment. It pertains to that and that only. If that amendment is passed, it is covered, and if it is not passed, there is no need for this. I ask that would be withdrawn.

On amendment No. 12, Senator Mark Daly is correct that the licensing companies do pay the licence fee and a 2% turnover tax. Some five or six companies do this. The national lottery is a very big advertiser compared with the companies that are allowing or promoting betting on the numbers. The national lottery is a monolith. It is massive in comparison. I am concerned that this legislation is not the place to do this. I know what the Senator said and I acknowledge that it can be done if we want to but this is not the place to do so. It was not the intention of the Bill, which is to update the 1956 Act in certain areas to remove uncertainty in the courts and in the system about stakes and prizes and raise the age to 18 years across the board, which everyone agrees with, as well as a few other technical things which were needed immediately. We are anxious to move this through. I am concerned that if we accept the amendment we might delay the Bill, and I want it to pass before the summer recess if possible.

The issue of the national lottery is a matter for the Minister of Public Expenditure and Reform. It is his particular responsibility. We are in discussions with him on the regulation of all gambling and whether all gambling regulation should come under the auspices of a gambling regulator in time. That is part of the discussions we are having. It was proposed when the lottery was first established and its regulator was established. I suggest that is when we can look at this legislation but this Bill is not designed for that. It is not focusing on the national lottery which is not under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality but of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The Minister recently debated this issue with colleagues in the Dáil. He has not come down on any particular view on this point yet. I ask that we park the amendment for now as it is not really part of the Bill, so that we can proceed with the Bill and have it enacted. We can keep the conversation and the debate open on the wider area of gambling. I know Senator Norris has a real personal interest, for which I thank him, on problem gambling. I acknowledge that this is a huge issue in Ireland and is something we are very aware of. If someone has an addition, it could be argued that it is also a health matter and that they need health and treatment in that regard, so the Department of Health and the HSE would come into play.

The regulation of gambling can help a bit - it can make it fairer - and things can be done around it, which is another day's work, but that only goes so far. I would not like to give the impression that establishing a gambling regulator would solve all the problems around gambling and gambling addition. I have had discussions and meetings with colleagues in other jurisdictions which have had very robust gambling commissions and regulators for some time but they still have serious issues with problem gambling. I am not saying a regulator would not have some impact - it would - but I want to caution against it being seen as a panacea or a silver bullet for problem gambling because it is not. If someone has an addition, he or she will find a way around it. We are talking about self-exclusion registers. I have discussed this with others in other jurisdictions and they have big question marks over these. A person might self-exclude from five different agents but not from the sixth and they will find a way. There are things we can do with a regulator but if someone has a problem with gambling, he or she needs to get treatment and help because it is a health matter. We should focus on that end, although we need to have a regulator as well.

I thank colleagues for the debate and discussion but I ask that this amendment would not be pressed now. Let us keep the question open. It is not crucial to move it forward now but the context of the overall gambling regulation and legislation that we are working on is probably the better time to have that discussion and debate.