Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I wish to thank all the contributors to the debate, particularly those who are sponsoring the Bill, namely, Senators Carrigy, Ward and Currie.

I wish to note a few points that were made. Senator Ward made the central point that there is a social dividend that is being diverted away from good causes towards the private income of bookmakers. He also made the point that there is a loss of footfall in local shops, which is a genuine concern at this time.

Senator Carrigy pointed out that he is a national lottery agent himself.As such, he knows the detail of the compliance, such as mystery shoppers going into shops to check that all the rules are being complied with. Those rules simply do not apply to bookmakers, which are governed by a different set of rules. We lose that oversight. The Senator pointed out that the sports capital programme is funded by the national lottery and that people around the country enjoy the use of facilities funded as a result of the national lottery. It is not an abstract thing or just money going into a pot.

I refer to the comments of Senators Boyhan and Maria Byrne. I am delighted to see Senator Byrne again and offer her congratulations on her return to the Seanad. The points made were that bookmakers' shops are not a controlled environment in the way that the national lottery is and are not subject to the same time rules or the rules in respect of the volume of tickets sold to people, which may tie into the issue of problem gambling. Bookmakers could choose to introduce equivalent safeguards, such as curfews, spending limits and abolishing promotional teasers. Perhaps it is time for bookmakers to reflect on what they could do in that regard rather than just doing what they are able to do within the law.

I note that the Bill proposes to amend section 46 of the National Lottery Act 2013 so as to prohibit unauthorised persons from offering bets that make use of the national lottery or its name. The principal target of the legislation appears to be gambling service providers who offer bets on the outcome of national lottery draws or, in other words, lottery betting. The National Lottery Act provides for the operation and regulation of the national lottery. I understand the national lottery regulator has a significant oversight role that seeks to ensure the national lottery is run with due propriety, the interests of participants in the games are protected, the long-term sustainability of the national lottery is safeguarded and revenues generated for good causes are maximised.

Bookmakers can employ promotional strategies such as discounting, loyalty schemes and offering free bets. These are sales and marketing strategies that the national lottery regulatory model prohibits and, as such, it is not a level playing field. The national lottery games are subject to curfews and spending limits that, as I stated, do not apply to lottery betting at a bookmaker's. It seems counter-intuitive that an individual can place a bet on the outcome of a national lottery draw at a time and in an amount that would not be permitted if the person wished to play the national lottery itself. It seems even more illogical that individuals are offered incentives or teasers to place such bets which the national lottery is strictly prohibited from offering. That is the current situation.

I understand there is concern regarding the potential for consumers to be misled by products that are offered by bookmakers under names that are similar to or the same as the national lottery and Euromillions draws. Again, bookmakers have the power to stop marketing their products in that way and perhaps it is time they do so.

Senator Boylan raised concerns regarding the regulation of gambling. Work is under way in the Department of Justice to introduce a significant suite of reforms of the models for licensing and regulating gambling. It is important to ensure the regulatory model that has been established for the national lottery is not undermined by lottery betting. The future gambling regulator may wish to consider these issues. The regulation of gambling is primarily a matter for the Department of Justice.

As regards funding, 65% of gross gaming revenues or, in effect, almost 30 cents out of every euro spent on lottery games, is returned to the Exchequer for use by good cause projects each year. This helps to fund a diverse range of important projects in areas such as youth organisations, Irish language support schemes, housing grants, sports and recreational facilities and the arts. It is feared that the type of betting addressed by the Bill may be diverting funding of between €40 million and €60 million a year from good causes. Although I note that approximately €97 million was raised by betting duty last year, it is set at 2% of turnover for bookmakers and 25% of commissions for remote betting intermediaries. However, the return for good causes is far higher, at approximately 30 cent of every euro spent, and raised a total of €254 million last year. Senators can see the difference between the 2% betting levy for bookmakers and what is, effectively, nearly a 30% rate for the national lottery.

In addition to the importance of the annual good causes funding, thousands of jobs in retailers that earn commissions for selling tickets and organisations that receive grant funding are directly supported by the national lottery. That said, I know that representatives of the bookmaking industry will provide a counter-argument regarding the benefits of consumer choice and the number of jobs that may be lost if lottery betting is outlawed. These are views that must be heard and respected. The representatives have probably taken the opportunity to contact Senators to make their views known. It is clear this is a multifaceted issue that will require careful consideration. There may be several ways to address it to the mutual satisfaction of the relevant stakeholders. Perhaps this debate can help to draw out further approaches and perspectives that could be considered.

There are concerns regarding the compatibility of the Bill with EU law. The prohibition contemplated in the Bill may restrict the freedom to provide certain gambling services pursuant to Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Such restrictions may be incompatible with EU law unless there are overriding reasons that justify them as a non-discriminatory and proportionate means of achieving legitimate objectives in the public interest. I look forward to hearing views on that issue.

The Bill is well drafted, but there is a concern in respect of the drafting of the proposed amendment to section 46(1) of the 2013 Act, which currently prohibits lottery providers from passing off their lottery as being affiliated with the national lottery. In its current form, section 46(1) provides:

A person, other than the Minister, the Regulator, the operator or a licensee or a person authorised to do so by any of them, shall not, for the purposes of a lottery game other than the National Lottery, make use of the names “Irish National Lottery” or “National Lottery” or of their equivalents in the Irish language or of any name so closely resembling either of those names or either of their equivalents in the Irish language as to be reasonably capable of leading to the belief that either of those names or either of those equivalents is being referred to.

The Bill proposes to substitute that section with the following:

A person, other than the Minister, the Regulator, the operator or a licensee, or a person authorised to do so by any of them, shall not, for the purposes of a betting offer— (a) make use of the National Lottery, or

(b) make use of—

(i) the name ‘Irish National Lottery’, its equivalent in the Irish language, or any equivalent thereof,

(ii) the name ‘National Lottery’, ‘An Crannchur Náisiúnta’, or any equivalent thereof, or

(iii) any name so closely resembling either of those names in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) as to be reasonably capable of leading to the belief that any of those names or equivalents is being referred to.

By replacing the words "lottery game" with "betting offer", the Bill appears to remove the existing prohibition on lottery providers making use of the national lottery. "Lottery game" is defined in section 2 of the 2013 Act as "any game, competition or other procedure ... in which or whereby prizes ... are distributed by lot or chance among persons participating". The definition of "betting offer" in the Bill is "a bet offered by a bookmaker". The proposed version of section 46(1) applies to betting offers rather than lottery games, leaving lottery providers apparently free to make use of the national lottery and its name. It is not clear if the Bill is intended to have this effect.

To summarise, this is a complex issue. I welcome the debate. I take the points regarding problem gambling and the possibility that graphic and enticing advertising appears to be very attractive to children. That is an issue of concern. Like every Member of this House, I am aware that problem gambling devastates lives and can lead to destruction beyond that caused by alcohol and drug addiction. I thank the proposers of the Bill for bringing it forward and I am glad to say that the Government will allow it to proceed.