Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have spoken on this Bill on a number of occasions and like everyone else, I am concerned about problem gambling. Where this Bill tackles that issue, it is welcome. I have commended the Minister of State and his officials on that initiative. However, in my view the Bill has gone past problem gambling and has overreached on other issues. Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to radio phone-in competitions. Nobody in this House has ever had anyone come to them to say they have a problem with radio bingo, radio quizzes or phone-in competitions. The Bill has redesignated things as gambling that I believe to be entertainment. Over time, I have had plenty of people share with me the destruction wrought on their lives of problem gambling. I am as committed as the next one to making sure we address it insofar as we can. However, I have been in these Houses for 22 years and have yet to have anyone approach about the issues I have raised. I believe the Bill has reached into that area.

Broadcasting in Ireland, as we see with RTÉ, is in a troubled place. RTÉ, as it is getting massively bailed out by the State, does not need to worry about this Bill but I think it will close down "The Late Late Show" competitions for holidays and so forth, and the competitions during sports programmes. On radio, whether local or national, it will also interfere with their competitions. It will probably catch newspapers too it they give away a cruise or whatever, as The Irish Times does sometimes with coupons you cut out. It will take engagement out of media, including radio. Getting people to engage is what politics is all about but this Bill seeks to take away from broadcasters that run competitions. I certainly do not believe that was the intention of the Minister of State and hopefully it was not the desire of the Government.

This Government wants a diverse and pluralist media. If it is not careful it will narrow the supply of media as this Bill takes away another source of funding for what could be suggested by some as nanny state reasons and beyond. It is making radio competitions into problem gambling when they are nothing of the sort. While print media gets a lot of the concern regarding the future of the sector, broadcasters too are in trouble. I have spoken about this in the past because I have a significant interest in public service media, public service broadcasting and public service journalism generally. It is something I feel is a bedrock and a significant check and balance on the democratic institutions of this State. The competition for media generally is now coming from the Internet, and nothing in this Bill is going to regulate problem gambling through that particular gamut.

To outline my concern, broadcasters' lunches are being eaten by the big social media platforms, which are gobbling up the advertising. We know about this. We have seen this throughout. The broadcasters' pot gets smaller and smaller. While running competitions is not their bread and butter, it helps radio stations make a turn in a declining market. As I said on the last day, it creates a level of engagement. There is no doubt but that there are elderly people, among whom I count some close relations, who enjoy some of these competitions as they live alone. While some of these competitions help to pay to an extent for journalism and local programming already highly regulated with up to four regulators, the Minister is now bringing them under the gambling regulator for radio phone-ins. Some stations will probably just not do that due to the cost and will lose a stream of revenue that pays some local reporter's wage. The Bill could mean, like with RTÉ or fundraising for political parties, that the State has to become the funder of last resort for everything if broadcasters start to fail.

Many people in the two Houses of the Oireachtas talk about Irish unity and if we are serious about this ever, we need to make sure laws North and South are compatible. My amendment does not seek unity, but it seeks to simply state that if this madness with regard to broadcasting is to be stopped, there must be another way. The Minister of State said last week that the way my Committee Stage amendment was drafted tied all regulation to the licence, exempting broadcasters from having to hold a licence to provide gambling activities. He kindly said that if anybody wanted to submit further amendments, he would consider them, but he is not minded to provide any kind of exemption for particular types of commercial activities at this stage. What I am doing with this amendment is aligning this Bill with the UK where, if a free route of entry is offered, it is not deemed to be gambling. It makes certain broadcast competitions exempt and no longer tied to just the radio licence, where people are not required to make a payment to participate in the game or lottery. No additional payment is required only of the winner to obtain the winnings.The winnings are paid out within a period of six months from the first date on which persons are invited to participate in the game or lottery concerned. Then, it is stated, "an exempt broadcast competition is deemed not to be a relevant gambling activity for the purposes of this Act". That is as I have set it out in the amendment. My amendment does as the Minister asks. It does not tie it to just the radio licence, which is a very onerous matter in any event. This amendment mimics the UK scenario and makes the Republic the same for broadcasters as the situation in the UK. Surely what applies up the road and some miles across the water should apply here.

How can something with a free route of entry be gambling? It is counterintuitive. If radio broadcasters are prevented from promoting radio bingo or other games of skill or luck during normal hours by the Bill, I cannot imagine that this is what the Minister wanted or wants to do. An exemption from the operation of the Bill for licensed radio broadcasters with a free route of entry is appropriate because there is no cogent public policy basis for treating licenser competitions, conducted by licensed broadcasters, as a form of gambling. This arises because such competitions are already well regulated, there is no evidence of harm arising from the conduct of such competitions and they fund quality local journalism and entertainment.

Regarding existing regulations, broadcasters are already subject to a wide range of regulations that contribute to the fair and transparent conduct of competitions by them. Such regulation includes regulation by ComReg and Coimisiún na Meán, the imposition of mandatory spend caps, industry self-regulation by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, and general consumer protection regulation. In addition to these consumer protections, broadcasters typically self-impose mechanisms to ensure fairness and transparency. For example, they do this by voluntarily setting spend caps below the mandatory caps and utilising third-party winner selection software.

Noting the extensive regulation I have described, requiring the media sector to contribute to the funding of yet another regulator adds to the financial insecurity for broadcasters and contributes to the perception of unevenness in the treatment of radio by this Government. As I said last week, industry experience with listener competitions is that they generate almost no consumer complaints. The evidence provided by the Phone-paid Services Authority which regulates premium rate telephony in the UK shows that while broadcasters are the largest users of phone-paid services, the sector has generated no complaints in the past five years. The Bill as it stands is trying to solve a programme that I perceive does not yet exist.

Listening competitions allow consumers to actively engage with and participate in broadcast shows rather than passively consuming their context. They enable two-way communication, fostering a more engaging and personalised experience. They should be allowed to continue without more regulation if there is a free route of entry. Listener competitions provide a vital source of income to broadcasters and that is needed to maintain current services.

Unlike gambling providers, broadcasters play an indispensable role in society and their funding must be protected. Broadcasters serve as a primary local platform for delivering news and current affairs to the public. In doing so, they compete against global tech giants which have extraordinary financial resources but have demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to remove disinformation from their platforms. Broadcasters facilitate the dissemination of quality local information, fostering an informed citizenry that is crucial for a thriving democracy. Broadcasters are instrumental in preserving and promoting society's cultural identity. They showcase local talent, share local stories, provide a platform for the diverse voices that make up the fabric of the nation, and do so in an environment that is free of the toxic activity often associated with large online platforms.

Broadcasters support jobs and stimulate innovation, particularly in the realms of journalism and entertainment, by fostering an environment that encourages creativity and diversity of content. Broadcasters offer a diverse array of programmes and cater for a wide audience, from educational content to cultural showcases, sports coverage and recreational programming. They play a vital role in enhancing the quality of life for citizens across the nation.

The loss of income from listener competitions would put pressure of broadcasters' funding, which would likely lead to a loss of jobs in this sector, including in journalism and context creators; a loss of revenue in jobs and associated sectors, including the music and arts sector and the broader creative industries; a reduction in quality and quantity of local journalism content; and the introduction of user paywalls, reducing accessibility for vulnerable consumer groups including the elderly and lower income groups. Those financial consequences would be compounded by an additional requirement on the media sector to contribute to the funding of the new regulator.

I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment. I am also happy to engage with his officials if it his desire to draw up a different amendment or one that meets his requirements and mine at the same time. I ask him to consider the amendment. I know it is coming at a particular juncture in the passage of this legislation and it is often difficult to have a Bill amended on Report Stage but I appeal to him based on what I have set out and the true and real concerns of the sector.