James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 262 inserts a new section 151 into the Bill to put an obligation on all licensees to not unreasonably withhold a payment of winnings.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendment No. 263 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins as the matter is sufficiently addressed by sections 157 and 158 which oblige licensees to train their staff to an authority approved standard on these issues.

I will respond together to amendments Nos. 264, 265 and 266 tabled by the Labour Party, Senators Ruane and Higgins and Fine Gael, respectively. The effect of amendment No. 266 would be to permit licensees to offer targeted inducements to specific groups of persons. This would narrow the scope of the provision too much. Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 seek to prohibit inducements entirely. The Government’s policy intention through section 152 is to prevent targeted and individualised incentives to encourage people to gamble but to permit, in a regulated manner, offers that are open to everyone. In summary, we are prohibiting targeted and individualised activities to incentivise people to gamble, such as VIP treatment and special odds. Section 152, as currently drafted, protects people from targeted, predatory practices and gives the authority and the courts the tools necessary to address such practices. It provides certainty to all parties affected by the legislation and does not inhibit licensees from engaging in common, competitive market practices such as offers to the public.

I cannot, unfortunately, accept amendment No. 267 as it touches on matters that fall under the remit of the Central Bank concerning unlicensed financial payment providers. Furthermore, it would be impractical to place such an obligation on licensees.

In respect of amendment No. 268, as Senators will be aware, section 160 relates to payment by credit card or the granting of credit facilities. Subsection (2) provides that licensees are prohibited from accepting a payment by electronic or digital means which uses money loaded from a credit card or from any other source of credit. From consultation with payment providers, I am advised that it is not technically possible to track whether an electronic or digital means of payment is funded by any form of credit other than a credit card. In this context the reference in section 160(2) to “or from any other source of credit” is redundant, is not practical and should be removed from the Bill.

Regarding amendment No. 269 in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins, in drafting the Bill I consulted the Data Protection Commission which did not specify a need for such a provision to be included. On that basis, I am not satisfied a provision such as the one proposed in the Senator’s amendment is necessary.

Amendments Nos. 270 and 271 are technical amendments.

On amendment No. 272, where a licensee has closed an account and transferred the balance of the moneys to the social impact fund due to not being able to refund a person as provided for in subsection (4) and that person subsequently reappears, amendment No. 272 provides the mechanism for that person to claim a refund from the authority.

I propose to take amendments Nos. 273 to 275 together. Section 170 provides for the ability of the authority to prescribe the times when gambling can be provided remotely in the State. Section 171 provides that the authority may prescribe the times and days when an in-person gambling premises may operate and is a modernisation of the approach concerning opening hours for bookmakers originally provided for in the Betting Act 1931. Amendments Nos. 273 and 274 reword and clarify the intention behind sections 170 and 171 while clearly setting out the policies and principles the authority must consider and have regard to when making such regulations.The new subsection (2) allows for the continuation of the opening hours for betting offices on greyhound tracks and horseracing courses, while amendment No. 275 to section 171 is a consequential amendment on foot of amendment No. 274. It amends the newly renumbered subsection (4) to refer back to subsection (3).

Amendment No. 276 refers to section 172 and provides for an offence of allowing a child on a premises where gambling activities are provided from. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that where a licensee allows his child to enter or to be on a premises in contravention of a determination by the authority to the contrary, the licensee shall be in breach of a relevant obligation and may be subject to administrative sanctions by the authority. Furthermore, should the authority consider that the breach was of a serious significance, subsection (2) provides that the authority may chose to take a criminal prosecution, and any licensee found guilty of such an offence may face a fine or up to eight years of imprisonment.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendment No. 277, in the names of Senators Ruane and Higgins. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) were included on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. The effect of the Senators' amendment would be to remove the ability of a licensee to raise a defence that they were mistaken as to the age of a person on their premises and the requirement of the court to consider if a reasonable person would be of the opinion that the child in question was of the age raised in the licensee's defence. These provisions are necessary to ensure the section is legally enforceable and complies with the requirements of due process.

Amendment No. 278 permits the authority to specify in an in-person licence that the licensee may, if they have complied with sections 109 and 110, as amended, have an ATM on their premises subject to any conditions the authority opposes.

Amendment No. 279 is similar in intention to those I am bringing forward on this matter. However, I feel the Government's amendments are slightly more comprehensive in respect of the conditions on licensees and provide the authority with a greater range of enforcement powers in respect of ATMs on their premises. It is on that basis that I cannot accept Senator Mullen's amendment.