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

We will debate that provision at that time. I would be interested to hear what colleagues have to say about it, but at that time. That is not what we are doing here.

It would appear that the thrust of the Senators’ amendment, and having regard to other proposed amendments ruled not in order, would effectively allow a free for all approach to online gaming. This is what the proposed amendments would do. The proposed widening of the scope of the 1956 Act at this point to enable persons to engage in remote gaming would happen in advance of any modern regulatory reform. We have to be careful to not open the door at this stage. The playing of gaming machines by remote means would totally undermine the provisions of the 1956 Act, which only provides for their physical playing in a licensed gaming or amusement hall, in areas where a local authority resolution allowing gaming is in force. There is no licensing pathway for remote gaming under the 1956 Act and I would be concerned about the lack of regulatory oversight that is envisaged by the Senators, particularly with regard to player protection, identification of problem gamblers, prevention of underage gambling and other issues. The proposed new gambling regulatory authority upon its establishment will deal with the licensing and regulation of gambling of all kinds, including remote gambling. I suggest that we refrain from considering any extension of the provisions of the 1956 Act to encompass remote gaming in the absence of the establishment of such a dedicated regulatory authority for gambling.

I now turn to the issue of the drafting of the Bill, and I know that Senator McDowell will appreciate this. The Senators’ proposed insertions in the Bill would create uncertainty as the terms sought to be included do not appear anywhere in the text of the Bill or of the 1956 Act. The proposed amendments would include definitions but they do not do anything or appear anywhere else in the legislation, and therefore would not have any impact, so why do it? What would be the point? I am not in a position to accept the Senators’ amendment. It would not assist in the limited reform of the 1956 Act and might risk unintended consequences. I appreciate the Senators' sincerity and real interest in this issue but I do not believe this is the way to do it. I ask them to consider withdrawing the amendment at this time. We will be back with the major reforms at a later stage.