James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept amendment No. 97 as I am satisfied that sections 50 (1) (a) and 50 (1) (b) of the Bill already address this issue. As the Senators are aware, a key purpose of the social impact fund will be to support the provision of public education and awareness-raising measures for the purposes of highlighting the social impact of compulsive or excessive gambling. I fully expect that the issues raised by the Senators will be highlighted by the new gambling regulatory authority. There is nothing to stop it from doing so. The issues mentioned are a key element of any awareness campaign. For what reason I do not know, the Senators are putting a very narrow interpretation on awareness and education. This will not only happen downstream, as I mentioned earlier. It absolutely will be about warning people of the dangers of getting into gambling in the first place.

I cannot accept amendment No. 98 as I am satisfied that section 50 of the Bill sufficiently addresses the issues the Senators have raised.

My amendment No. 99 inserts a new section into the Bill to provide for the possible refund of moneys transferred into the social impact fund from a licensee that transferred a balance on an account that had not been used for 13 months and where the licensee, despite best efforts, could not make a refund to the account holder.

Amendment No. 100 proposes to insert a new subsection into section 52 setting out various criteria the Minister must consider when determining the level of contribution to the social impact fund by licensees. I cannot accept this amendment. As per section 52, the social impact fund shall be funded by annual contributions from licensees, except for charitable or philanthropic licensees. Contributions will be determined by the authority in accordance with regulations made by the Minister. The section as drafted provides for the discretion of the authority in determining the needs of operating the social impact fund, the level of contributions required to operate the fund and in financing those activities and projects on an annual or multi-annual basis. Requiring the authority to adhere to a defined set of criteria may result in the fund either being under- or over-funded on an annual basis, as has been the case with similar regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions.

I recognise the constructive intention behind the proposed amendment and the intent to bring certainty in calculating the level of contribution to the fund from smaller licensees. I assure the Senators that the Bill has been drafted to ensure that contributions will be calculated and scaled accordingly. In preparing the Bill, I have been clear that smaller operators should not be treated in the same manner as larger operators. The Bill reflects this. I reiterate that the authority will be best placed to determine the levels of contributions required to the fund. It already has the ability to scale and determine those contributions accordingly, based on the licensees in question. While I recognise that this was not the intention, the Senators' amendment would have significant implications and consequences for the operation of the fund. On this basis I cannot accept the amendment.