Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I listened to what the Minister of State said regarding Senator Ward's amendment. Since there is a similarity, I chose to withdraw my amendment but we can look at it again on Report Stage. I have previously recognised the importance of this Bill and we all recognise the necessity to address the issue of problem gambling.

The intended purpose of the amendment, and indeed what Senator Ward discussed, was to address what can only be considered an over-reach in this Bill as it relates to the Irish radio sector. The proposed amendment effectively exempts licensed radio broadcasters from the requirement to hold a gambling licence to conduct an activity that would constitute a game or a lottery and where this activity is conducted in connection with their editorial broadcast activities. I believe the amendment is necessary because the Bill in its current form may significantly limit the ability of broadcasters to run listener competitions. Listener competitions are important from two perspectives. They are a source of much-needed revenue to local and regional radio stations that are currently struggling to take on the challenges that the large social media platforms are dealing with. In this context, I might add that we have no capacity to regulate problem gambling on the Internet. An element of the Bill undermines good quality public service journalism while at the same time leaving open access to problem gambling on the Internet that, on another level, is damaging and undermining our democracy as a result of the way in which it captures viewers and listenership.

There is another dimension to this. I am conscious that there are many elderly people who sit at home and for whom the day is very long. Many of them are living alone and are towards the end of their lives. These games are an integral part of their daily existence. I have addressed problem gambling with many people over the years. I have yet to hear of radio bingo or many of these relatively small games with relatively small pots being in any way injurious to the people concerned. Listener competitions are familiar to each of us. Listeners typically enter via premium rate telephone lines and then have the opportunity to be selected to play to win by answering a question on air. There is a kind of participation. It gets many elderly people through the day. This is no different from some people who live in isolation and have a drink or smoke a cigarette every day. They are not alcoholics but it is part of putting down their time. I am all for addressing problem gambling but an element of this is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.

The amendment I put forward is predicated on the existing definitions of "lottery" and "game", which are overboard. In their broad language, they seem to capture the Dublin City Marathon as gambling, for example, as it is an activity engaged in by a person on the payment of money by that person who, in return, obtains an opportunity to win a prize of money. The prize in the marathon is €15,000 so it is caught by the new €10,000 limit. The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong about that; it is just an observation. The issue has been raised by the Gaelic Athletic Association, the Federation of Irish Sport and Charities Institute Ireland among others in the Minister of State's ambit. I will not expand on that further as I am sure they have been in touch with him.

Suffice to say, if an alternative approach to the definition of "lottery" and "game" were adopted, the proposed amendment may become unnecessary. Even the Minister's changing the limit to €10,000 is going to cause great difficulties in road races, charities and the GAA. To succeed, prizes need to be of consequence, such as houses, cars, weddings, etc. As we in political parties know, the prizes have to be big cash sums to make a difference and to get people to participate. I am conscious that in County Clare the GAA will raise significant sums of money by offering a house. Participants pay €100 for a ticket and this is done to support the local club. In return, it puts that money into the central coffers. It encourages people to participate. Money goes in and a house is won at the end of it. I am not sure they will be able to do that at the end of this. That would be a retrograde step.

I recognise the Government put a lot of money into the GAA recently through the sports capital fund but this is an alternative way of supporting our Gaelic games, something which we love. I have never heard of a situation, certainly not in County Clare, where anyone over-extending themselves in an attempt to win the house. We have a housing crisis, which we often talk about, but I do not know of anyone who spent more on tickets than they could afford in the hope of winning their dream home. We may need to balance this a little bit more.

It is counterintuitive for radio broadcasters to be prevented from promoting radio bingo or other games of skill or luck during normal hours by the Bill just because the amount runs up. I cannot imagine that this is what the Minister of State had intended. He, no more than any of us, is well connected to the local community and knows how these games benefit people, particularly those who live in daily isolation. An exemption from the operation of the Bill for licensed radio broadcasters is appropriate. There is no cogent public policy basis for treating listener competitions conducted by licensed broadcasters as a form of gambling. Such competitions are already well regulated. There is no evidence of harm arising from the conduct of such competitions, which fund quality local journalism and entertainment.

With regard to existing regulation, broadcasters are already subject to a wide range of regulation that contribute to the fairness and transparency of competitions run by them. As we all know, such regulation includes regulation by ComReg and Coimisiún na Meán, the imposition of mandatory spend caps, industry self-regulation by the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland and general consumer protection regulation. It is well regulated. In addition to those consumer protections, broadcasters typically self-impose mechanisms to ensure fairness and transparency, for example, by setting voluntary spend caps below the mandatory caps and utilising third-party winner selection software. Nothing in the extensive regulation I have described requires the media sector to contribute to the funding of yet another regulator. This would add to the financial insecurity of broadcasters and contribute to the perception of unevenness in the treatment of radio by this Government.

Regarding the absence of evidence of harm, the Bill's purpose has been described as to tackle uncontrolled gambling and problem gambling and to protect children. Listener competitions are neither uncontrolled nor problematic and children are excluded from them. Industry experience with listener competitions is that they generate almost no consumer complaints. The UK provides a useful case study as good data is available there. Evidence provided by the Phone-paid Services Authority, which regulates premium rate telephony services, PRS, in the UK, shows that although broadcasters are the largest users of PRS, the sector has generated no complaints in the past five years. Similarly, industry experience shows low consumer spend associated with consumer competitions. I am told there is an average spend per entrant of €4.27 per month. That is hardly problem gambling. The capacity of consumers to bar or stop premium rate services on their phones further contributes to the absence of consumer harm.

There is also no evidence of harm to children. Under the terms of such competitions, children are excluded. In addition, industry experience is that there are almost no complaints regarding children entering listener competitions. Listener data suggests that children represent a very small proportion of radio listenership. Most people who provide a phone to a child block premium rate services on their phone to prevent inappropriate spending, in addition to the rights that a person may have to claim a refund where PRS have been misused by a child.

Listener competitions allow consumers to actively engage with and participate in broadcast shows rather than passively consuming their content. They enable two-way communication, fostering a more engaging and personalised experience. Moreover, listener competitions provide a vital source of income to broadcasters that is needed to maintain current services. Unlike gambling providers, broadcasters play an indispensable role in society and their funding must be protected. We all know the reasons for that. The loss of income from listener competitions would put pressure on broadcasters' funding which would likely lead to a loss of jobs in the sector. That would include journalists and content creators and a loss of revenue in jobs associated with the sector, including music and arts and the broader creative industries. It would also bring about a reduction in the quantity and quality of local journalistic and entertainment content and the introduction of user paywalls, reducing accessibility for vulnerable consumer groups, including the elderly and lower income groups.These financial consequences would be compounded by any additional requirement on the media sector to contribute to the funding of a new regulator.

I wish to raise a further issue that was not addressed by the proposed amendment. It relates to the operation of the watershed provision, which will limit the times at which gambling advertising can be run on radio. Again, the limitation is overboard in that it takes a regime that was developed to address the broadcast television sector and applies it to media more generally. Specifically in this case, it is the watershed implemented to address the influence of television. Different demographic and audience consumption behaviours mean a restrictive regime designed for television is poorly suited to address perceived issues relating to radio. It will be counterintuitive if radio broadcasters are prevented from promoting radio bingo or other games of skill or luck during normal hours.

The watershed arrangements will have a material financial impact on broadcasters. They are also likely to have a material financial impact on charitable and community-based funding activities that most people would not typically associate with problem gambling. Such activities are often promoted by the broadcast media either on a paid or complimentary basis. We anticipate that the GAA, the Federation of Irish Sport and the Charities Institute of Ireland will have addressed this issue with the Minister of State in detail through their conversations with him. While I have withdrawn amendment No. 148 on the basis I did not want to put it to a vote, I ask the Minister of State to give consideration to the points I have made, recognising the limited potential for harm in the way the Bill does. Anything the Minister of State might be able to provide me with from a comfort perspective would be most welcome.