John McGahon (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Minister of State's comments. I will make a few points of my own. My amendment would change the section such that it would read, "A licensee may not offer a person an inducement." I want to outline some of the reasons why this proposal should be considered. First, the section as it stands fails to acknowledge that gambling is a legitimate industry in which inducements are crucial for fostering competition and attracting customers. Recent amendments, introduced on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil on 1 May 2024 permit licensees to offer inducements to the general public while prohibiting targeted offers to specific individuals or groups. Although the removal of the blanket prohibition is certainly welcome, the remaining restrictions pose significant challenges for businesses. The ability to proactively seek out and attract customers is fundamental to any business or industry, and gambling is no exception. In the highly competitive online marketplace, businesses must be able to differentiate themselves, retain customer loyalty and drive new engagement. Without the ability to communicate directly with potential customers, gambling companies are left at a significant competitive disadvantage, particularly in an industry where other forms of entertainment and digital services are aggressively marketing to similar audiences.

If companies are unable to offer inducements in a way that targets specific customers, like personalised offers or promotions, they risk losing ground to black market operators that do not adhere to the same regulatory standards. The black market has no responsible gambling measures. It offers no consumer protection. It contributes nothing to the Exchequer. Without competitive inducements, customers are likely to turn to these more unregulated alternatives, which not only undermines many of the public policy objectives that the Government and this legislation are trying to achieve, but also creates a greater risk of problem gambling and financial harm, which is one of the reasons I tabled the amendment in my name.

It is essential, in the context of the amendment, to recognise that in today's digital economy, all businesses are expected to seek out customers through a range of marketing and promotional tools. Indeed, industries across the board, including retail, travel and hospitality, use these targeted offers and loyalty programmes as a basic and standard business practice. Whether it is a loyalty card, €10 or €50 off or any other sort of promotional inducement, these tactics are normal in other industries and are an accepted way of attracting and indeed retaining a customer. I tabled the amendment specifically because I do not think the gambling industry should be singled out when other sectors are able to operate under the same principles.

Customers expect inducements. Many existing online gamblers actively seek out these promotions and have grown accustomed to receiving them. A sudden halt to inducements would likely cause customers to search for them elsewhere, either from foreign or indeed unregulated operators, putting them at greater risk and reducing regulatory oversight. It is another reason why I decided to table the amendment.

I accept the points the Minister of State made. I am keen to hear his response to a few of the points that have been made by Senators.

I want to stick close to the amendment as I conclude. On a more practical level, the Bill and section 154 in particular do not clearly define what constitutes an inducement. It leaves a substantial regulatory gap. This ambiguity places too much burden on the regulator. Given the subjective importance of inducements to different stakeholders, including customers, businesses, disordered gamblers and public health advocates, any regulatory decision could lead to unintended consequences. Poorly defined or overly restrictive rules would hamper legitimate operators. They could drive customers to seek unregulated alternatives and undermine the core objectives not only of this section but of the Bill as a whole. That is essentially where I am coming from. Restricting this ability not only threatens the competitive landscape but it risks increasing participation in unregulated gambling activities, which I believe carry far greater harm both socially and financially. It is crucial to try to strike a balance. That is what I have tried to do with this amendment, because I want it to protect consumers while allowing legitimate operators to compete effectively in a highly regulated and responsible manner. That is why I tabled the amendment.