Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I also want to indicate my support for these constructive amendments from Sinn Féin. It will be useful to have no fewer then one member with lived experience. The lived experience of those who have experienced gambling addiction is very important. Equally important is the experience of those who have been impacted by harmful gambling behaviours. As Senator Wall said, we could all give examples of persons who have lost their family, of families who have lost their house and all financial security, of people who have lost their children or of children who have lost a parent due to harmful gambling behaviour. There is a strong case for lived personal experience. As I said, that applies both to people who have experienced gambling addiction and understand how it operates and to those who have experienced the impacts of it. In respect of the proposed subsection (5) in amendment No. 47, this is vital. It is very important that this does not become any sort of an industry body or anything that is perceived as a self-regulatory mechanism. It is necessary that this is seen as something completely independent from the industry and which operates to regulate the industry from the outside. We must ensure that we do not end up with multiple industry players in there who may or may not have an agenda to try to minimise the impact of the provisions or talk about how one can work around them. That is something we do not want to happen. That is not to say that everybody who comes from the industry might have that perspective - many may not - but it is important that we maximise the independence of the board and minimise the representation of those in paid employment in the industry in recent years.

That is complementary to our amendment No. 59 in this grouping. Senator Warfield is seeking to address this issue at the point of appointment. We are trying to address it somewhat later. We address it in page 28, between lines 7 and 8, where we look to insert into the criteria to be abided by members of the authority the clause "shall not be in receipt of pecuniary benefits from gambling licence holders". It seems obvious but it is important to state. Amendment No. 59 seeks a new criteria on the terms and conditions of membership of the authority that would exclude anyone who is in receipt of any pecuniary benefit from gambling licenceholders, whether in terms of employment or shareholding etc. It seems obvious that anyone who benefits monetarily from a gambling licenceholder should not also be in a position where they establish standards for gambling products, deal with complaints against the authority or perform the general functions of the authority. It would be a clear conflict of interest. Our amendment is quite simple but would copper-fasten it and I believe is complementary to the amendment put forward by Sinn Féin.

Our other amendments in this grouping relate primarily to the functions of the authority.Amendment No. 48 seeks to insert the following clause, "to monitor trends in gambling activities in the State,". Amendment No. 49 inserts the provision "to take measures to reduce or eliminate compulsive and problem gambling,". These relate to section 14 of the Bill setting out the functions of the new gambling regulator. Amendment No. 48 would impose an obligation on the authority to monitor the trends in gambling activity in the State and the provision in this section would charge the authority with licensing and supervising. The current provisions charge the authority with licensing, supervising and controlling gambling activity but it is also important that the authority would also monitor trends in gambling and gambling activity in order that the regulator effectively keeps abreast of and ahead of developments that are occurring in the industry. This is an industry in which practices can change very quickly. We have seen with issues in the past where industry can sometimes outpace the provisions which are there to regulate it, particularly in areas around innovation and technology, given the intrinsic links to that technology. We saw the shift to online gambling and to technology-mediated gambling and there can be very speedy changes and shifts in practices. If the regulator is not charged to watch where those trends occur and get ahead of them, then we are again going to be coming after the fact in talking about the new phenomena, be it from loot boxes to whatever other trends are emerging. Given the intrinsic link to gambling and technology, particularly post Covid, where a huge amount of the profiteering in the gambling industry is taking place online, we believe the new regulator should have a designated responsibility for monitoring trends and practices.

Amendment No. 49 separately imposes an obligation on the authority to take measures to reduce or eliminate compulsive and problem gambling. This amendment has the effect of giving the authority a mandate and a function to safeguard gambling participants, particularly those who are susceptible to problem gambling and gambling addiction. While there are various provisions within the Bill that refer to the need to safeguard participants in reducing excessive and compulsive gambling, we think it is a missed opportunity not to place these within the functions of the regulator and to recognise these as one of the very reasons we are bringing this legislation. One of the reasons it has been long called for is specifically for problem and compulsive gambling. Providing the authority with this function and mandate would send a very clear message of intent around the curtailment and elimination of excessive and compulsive gambling and an acknowledgement of the role to be played by the State agency responsible for the oversight of the industry in helping to achieve that. This is not simply the regulation of any other industry. This is not the regulation of milk production but the regulation of an industry where there is a significant risk of harm. This is one of the reasons we are looking for this specific regulator. The mandate of the authority should include a mandate that effectively gives the regulator permission to identify and try to work to minimise that harm.

As for amendment No. 52, when we move to the activities and functions of the industry, and the activities which the authority may engage with; the same principle applies. The activities would include the harms. This, again, is expanding on the functions in respect of public awareness. As the Bill is currently drafted, the agency is obliged to enhance public awareness in the licensing and regulation of gambling activities. It is not sufficient to simply state that it is licensed, how these activities are regulated and that these are the technical pathways of matters; the key point where public awareness is needed is in what we insert here, which are the harms and dangers posed to individuals, families and communities by problem and compulsive gambling. We do not want to be simply giving people awareness that this is regulated under X by the regulator and that this is the licenceholder, and so forth. We want to ensure that the public awareness extends to the potential harms and dangers to individuals, families and communities from problem and compulsive gambling. Imposing obligations on licensees in safeguarding participants is important but it would seem prudent that the regulator itself could also play an active role in communicating the potential harms and risks which can be posed by participation in gambling.

Given that the regulator is likely to have communication with the wider public on a frequent basis, it strikes me that this is an opportunity to be seized in improving public awareness about the risks associated with gambling and the safeguards available to gambling participants. Again, this is to minimise risk. It is one thing to say that there are obligations on licensees, because that is where people are already perhaps engaging in a gambling activity with one of the licensees and there should be caveats around how they are treated and engaged with. The advantage of having this mandate and message coming down from the authority itself is that one reaches those who are not yet gambling or in contact with the licensee, who are considering gambling and who may have a romanticised picture of what gambling might constitute. Rather than leaving it to the licensees, which are being given stronger obligations under this Bill that are welcome, they also have a motive to sell a product. Having this neutral and independent expert authority communicating a message directly to the public with no interest involved serves a very important purpose in preventing gambling and those who may be considering engaging in it in a dangerous way. This is perhaps a difference between having a message on the packets of cigarettes and having a message about smoking that is conveyed to the general public.

Amendment No. 53 proposes in page 26, line 5, after "activities" to insert,“having particular regard to the harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling”. These are two different versions of the of same amendment. Again, the gambling regulatory authority is charged with a research function under the Bill. This is a welcome provision but the scope of the research activities is limited at present. As drafted, the subsection provides that the regulator would simply engage in research relating to gambling activities. We believe the provisions around the functions in which the authority should engage are imprecise and the wording could perhaps be expanded to explicitly include an obligation to undertake research into the harms of excessive and compulsive gambling activity, as set out in amendment No. 53.

In a later section of the Bill, section 31, we suggest some of the additional areas where the authority may also undertake research and we have some amendments there which seek separately to expand these provisions. We list a few different areas of potential research, including perhaps activities which are not always identified as gambling activities but are effectively operating as gambling activities. We will come to those amendments later. Given the widely understood harms, that issue of addressing the harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling upfront should be mentioned in line 5 of page 26.

The need for a tightly regulated gambling industry stems from our understanding of the risks and harms and this is the root origin of why we are looking for greater regulation in this area. It seems it would be prudent to develop our understanding further through relevant targeted research in order that we can safeguard participants and our loved ones in the future. I ask the Minister of State to respond on this point. If he is of the view that the research functions are sufficiently fleshed out in later sections, then there may be the opportunity to name those issues of harm in the later sections of the Bill. We are open to the Minister of State's perspective on that matter.

I come to the last couple of amendments in this area. Amendment No. 54 proposes to insert, after gambling activities, "and emerging trends and technologies in the gambling industry". Amendment No. 54, like amendment No. 53, is seeking to expand the research function so that there would be research into emerging industry trends and technologies. We must ensure that the regulator has an eye to the future so that we can adequately safeguard gambling participants and would-be participants from the undue harm that we cannot necessarily foresee.This is about getting ahead of things.

According to the ESRI, online gambling accounts for three fifths of the total gambling spend of those engaged in problem gambling, with in-person spend making up the rest. Ten years ago the balance was completely different. Look how quickly it shifted, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic where gambling in the betting shop was the picture people had in their heads to online gambling. In the online space there are new technologies, new forms of promotion and new and insidious incentives. The psychology that relates to addiction and compulsion is constantly evolving. Vast resources are going into the technologies and mechanisms in the online space that are designed to keep people gambling for higher amounts, for longer and more frequently. That is shape-shifting all the time because it is a commercial activity. In that context, predatory tracking and profiling techniques are being used. The same advertisement or invitation to gamble tracks people across the Internet, wherever they go and whatever they do on the Internet. These kinds of issues are a regulatory and legislative conundrum that we would not have anticipated a few years ago. That is why having a research function with people looking at the trends and saying "This is something new the industry is trying" will ensure the authority can do its job in an effective way.

Amendment No. 54 is to ensure the industry undertakes its research, recognises the changing trends and technologies and is ready to take action in respect of them in an effective way.

Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a new function for the authority, which is the monitoring of international best practice in the licensing and regulation of gambling activities. A later section provides that the authority will engage in research activities looking at the international regulatory context, but the regulator should be keeping abreast of developments in international best practice as a central function. It should not just be a research project to the side, but a central function of the staff in the authority. The speed of development of online gambling is important with regard to the authority monitoring developments by liaising with international counterparts. Many operators in the Irish market are present in other markets internationally, with parent companies operating different brands in different markets. The companies learn from one another how to navigate regulatory challenges. A new innovative dubious practice will sometimes be piloted in one area to see how the regulator responds and then tweaked so as to be better able to avoid regulation in another jurisdiction. Given that the companies are learning from one another how to work around regulatory challenges, our regulatory authorities should also be working together to monitor international conduct in order that we can incorporate learning and best practices and keep pace with developments in the industry. While the Minister of State may be of the view that this is provided for to a sufficient extent in the research programme of the authority, it would be good for it to be a central function.

We talk about these trends, even, for example, the use of cryptocurrency. I may bring amendments on Report Stage about the areas of cryptocurrency and gambling presented as stock market or currency speculation, but effectively operating as gambling. Many years ago - I am breaking from the notes by the expert who is Senator Ruane and would like to be here herself - I remember meeting attorneys general. I spoke about data protection to a conference of US state attorneys general. Multiple lobbyists were present who were engaged in cryptocurrency and in gambling activities associated with cryptocurrency. They were there to lobby the US attorneys general and we began to see the exact same kinds of practices and trends a year or two later with cryptocurrency lobbying taking place in Ireland and the rest of Europe. Similarly, the gambling industry tests its arguments in different jurisdictions and we need to be ahead of that.

Amendment No. 57 proposes:

In page 26, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“(b) the need to ensure that persons recommended to the Minister under subsection (2) are not affected by conflicts of interest, ”.

This amends the section others have spoken about on the appointment of members of the regulatory authority that sets out the various requirements to be met by a person to be recommended. Amendment No. 57 seeks to expand on the eligibility criteria to ensure that individuals who would be affected by a conflict of interest would not be eligible to serve as members of the regulatory authority. This complements Sinn Féin's earlier amendment. It is to ensure that no one who may have a material interest in the performance or otherwise of the gambling industry is shaping the regulatory landscape. This is a similar point to that made by amendment No. 59 to which I do not need to return.

My last amendment in this grouping is amendment No. 58, which seeks to insert data protection as one of the areas of expertise which it would be beneficial for members of the regulatory authority to possess. Given the extent to which participants' personal data is being gathered, profiled and analysed by the gambling industry and the detailed micro-targeting that takes place on the basis of those profiles and gathered personal data, it is imperative that the authority would contain expertise in the area of data protection, data privacy and data regulation. I am particularly concerned by the extent to which the Bill addresses concerns in the area of data protection and data privacy. The practices of gambling companies in respect of personal data are becoming more and more predatory. That is a hard word but it is effectively a predatory approach to the harvesting, profiling and use of personal data. Vast tracts of participants' personal data are being harnessed to develop bespoke personalised profiles which provide licensees windows into the lives, behaviours and vulnerabilities of their customers. Gambling companies do not tend to use this data to safeguard their users. More often they use the assembled data and profiles to get their customers to spend more time and money on their apps and websites. This is the nub of how the online section of gambling has managed to increase so much and why so much problem gambling is now taking place in the online space. The data points connected by these companies and their third party service providers - this is where the international piece comes in again; in some cases third party service providers are located in the US to seek to avoid or minimise EU data rules - can include people's browsing history, information on their spending habits, demographic data, behavioural information, the things they are most likely to bet on and the time of day in which they are most open to betting. In some cases the information can be shared between different brands owned by a parent company luring participants to spend more time and money gambling with different services and making it more difficult for people who suffer from gambling addiction to create space between them and their addiction. For example, even when people quit a service they recognise is a danger for them because they recognise their addictive behaviour, another service owned by the same parent company can suddenly start to present itself and try to hook them back into gambling practices. If we want the regulator to be able to meaningfully address concerns around data privacy and the abuse of personal data, it is important it possess the relevant expertise and understanding. This amendment would ensure the expertise would be reflected in the authority's membership. It is a simple but important change, which I implore the Minister of State to accept. Simply having it listed as one of the factors would greatly add to the efficacy of the authority's work.

That was quite a long intervention because we had a number of amendments in this grouping.