Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The debate on this Bill will adjourn at 9 p.m., if not previously concluded. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.

Amendment No. 1 is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 107 to 109, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the amendment agreed? Does the Minister of State wish to speak to it? He is okay. Does anybody else wish to speak to it?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator McDowell wishes to speak.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will let Senator McDowell speak but he is not here yet.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am just allowing him some time.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will allow Senator McDowell to speak and I thank him for making the effort to be here. I know he is a bit breathless.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please speak to Dublin City Council about the traffic. It is unbelievable.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately it is not part of the remit of the Bill, as the Senator knows. We will certainly let the Senator make that point on the Order of Business as he is well able to speak on that. Does he wish to speak on amendment 1 to section 1?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To assist the Senator, amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 107 to 109, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, which has been agreed.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These amendments are designed to preserve the existing law in Ireland. It is a law that is being deliberately breached day in, day out by powerful casino operators in this city. Under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, one cannot run an amusement hall unless a local authority has decided that either in the whole of or in part of its area there should be a regime in place that permits the operation of amusement halls. That means that in places such as Bundoran in County Donegal, Balbriggan in County Dublin and Bray in County Wicklow there were amusement halls where slot machines and the like were permitted - one-armed bandits, as they were. It allowed Wicklow County Council or Bray Urban District Council, or wherever it may be, to say that amusement halls would be permitted in part of its area but in other parts of its area they would not. That is the law of the land right now and it is provided for under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. Part III of that Act provides that local authorities have to adopt a resolution to make lawful the operation of what are termed under that Act "amusement halls". If local authorities do not operate amusement halls, it is completely illegal for anybody else to operate them.

To put this in context, what happened was that the Revenue Commissioners persuaded the Department of Finance to run a Finance Bill requiring finance permits to be applied to every slot machine or betting machine. No attempt was made to change the law as to where these machines could be operated. Nobody ever looked at Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 to determine whether or not that law was or was not in operation.

I do not know if the Minister of State is aware of this but members of An Garda Síochána in Dublin seized machines in places such as O'Connell Street and removed them from premises. I do not know what happened thereafter and no efforts were made to enforce the law. If one looks around the Dorset Street area, the quays in Dublin, Dublin suburbs such as Rathmines, or O'Connell Street, there are what in effect are illegal amusement halls now operating. I should put on the record that Dublin City Council, way back in the 1980s, revoked its resolution to adopt Part III of the 1956 Act and as a result premises on O'Connell Street, which were run by significant families with interests in the entertainment industry, were told to close down. They fought this through the courts. They said it was their business and the courts, right up to the Supreme Court, said sorry and that it was always conditional on there being resolution in place to permit the operation of these places, and they failed. When I was a youngster there was a place on O'Connell Street called Funland which was near Nelson's Pillar. Those places all closed. That was the law.

In Bray, in Bundoran and Ballybofey in County Donegal and in a few other places, which were holiday resorts, permits were in operation that were adopted by the local authorities and stated that because these were holiday resorts, it was a legitimate form of holiday entertainment and they would permit them in their areas. The great majority of the country was not the subject, geographically, of any resolution under Part III of the 1956 Act.

Now we have a situation where this Bill is simply repealing that Act. What is proposed is that the gambling commission being established under this Act will simply license these premises which are at present being operated unlawfully and in breach of the 1956 Act. I do not know what assurances the people who have invested huge sums have been given, and there are massive places in this city operating illegally. They seem to think their premises will obtain permits under this new regime when it comes through. In the meantime, nobody is trying to close them down.

It is a legitimate power for Dublin City Council to have to decide whether, in its area, there should be amusement halls - one-armed bandit places - or not. That is something a local authority should be allowed to decide. The same applies to Wicklow County Council. If it wants to allow amusement halls to continue in Bray, that is fine but if it does not want them in other places in County Wicklow, that is its decision and that is the law as it stands.

What we have now are very powerful and wealthy people who have invested huge sums of money. They are advertising in the media to operate these amusement halls. They now call them "casinos", which they did not do in the past.My point is this. There was a democratic local power, vested in local authorities, to make decisions on this. I consider this to be a largely parasitical industry, which depends on a combination of naivety, hopelessness and quasi-addiction. In working class suburbs, in particular, people are in there with buckets of money and the like and they are now given ATMs and credit card facilities in these places to get cash to operate the machines and to make the owners wealthy, because the odds are stacked against them. I believe these places should be controlled and that local people and local authorities should be given the right to determine when, whether and in what circumstances they will allow parts of their local administrative area to be used for this purpose.

Why do we have this situation in O’Connell Street? All of those places were closed in the 1980s. I remember the resolution of Dublin City Council had the active support of the then Workers’ Party members of Dublin City Council at the time. Why is it they have suddenly sprouted up again? There are social implications to them as well. The areas they are located are not posh areas – they are not in Main Street, Donnybrook. They are placed where people who are in the less privileged section of society are likely to congregate. It is an exploitation of them. This idea of operating casinos is not for the powerful and the wealthy.

I was the Minister for justice in the mid-2000s, when a new phenomenon started related to private members’ card clubs in this city. Under the pretence they were private clubs and effectively members’ clubs, gambling was permitted, even though it too was unlawful at the time. If you went into one of these places and played blackjack, under the 1956 Act, for every player, including the bankers, likely odds of winning had to be the same. This notion that there could be a croupier and table and blackjack, roulette or whatever else it was, would only be lawful if everybody sitting at the table had an equal opportunity to become the banker or the operator of the machine. Very wealthy people, who I will not name because it would be unfair, put huge pressure on the Government not to act in respect of these card clubs and invested their own money in them. I refer to very wealthy people, not amusement hall operators. Very wealthy people did that and they got away with it because, at Government level, some people felt the existing laws were overly restrictive. A group was established under a barrister called, I think, Michael McGrath, who came up with a report sometime in the 2007 to 2010 period recommending that there should be a process leading to the licensing of gambling in Ireland.

I am a liberal by disposition. I buy my lotto tickets from time to time and, very foolishly, the odd time I go to the races and lose a lot of money, but it is my choice and that is it. I have no problem, and neither did the then Minister, John O’Donoghue, who was in charge of sports and tourism at the time, supporting horse race betting as an important, integral part of a hugely important industry in Ireland. However, I do not accept that running casinos at any level in cities is a good thing. It exploits people and it exploits semi-addictive behaviour and hopelessness in many people’s lives. They go at early hours of the morning to these places. They are queuing up at 9 a.m. to get in to spend money to get poorer as the day goes on.

We also have the phenomenon of the large English bookmakers trying for a while to bring into Ireland fixed-odds betting terminals - FOBTs, as they are called. They are legal in England. Now there is a limitation on the stakes that can be inserted. These were effectively betting and gambling machines being run all over England and there was a big push to do them here, put them into every bookie shop and put them everywhere so that these people could operate. They came up with clever stratagems. Some of the English bookmaking firms said that this was a lottery, even though the result was determined online by a computer somewhere abroad. Therefore, it was not actually a gaming machine, because the machine itself did not determine the outcome. That has never been accepted in Ireland as part of Irish law.

As I said, I am a liberal. I do not mind people going to Bray, Bundoran, Ballybofey or wherever else. If they want to go to a resort where these things are available, let them do it. However, I refer to allowing what has happened in Dublin. The local authority said none of this will happen anymore in Dublin city and it revoked permission for it to happen under Part III of the 1956 Act. Other people with a lot of money simply ignored the law. An Garda Síochána made a few attempts to seize the machines used. I presume they ended up in some kind of legal wrangle. The machines that were seized were replaced and the moneymaking racket has continued.

What the amendments in my name do is as follows. Since this new Bill will repeal the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, the amendments are designed to say that notwithstanding that repeal, a new Part will be inserted into this statute to give local authorities the ultimate say, in the same way they have currently. If the House looks at amendments Nos. 107 to 109, they are effectively to create a simpler version of Part III of the 1956 Act as Part 4 of this Bill. The proposed new section 65 of the Bill would state that this section shall not have effect in any area unless there is for the time being in force a resolution under the section; that a local authority may, by resolution, adopt the section or rescind it; that the resolution shall not have effect unless one month’s notice of the intention of the local authority to pass it or rescind it has been published; and to provide for evidence as to whether or not such a resolution has been passed.

Amendment No. 108 provides that “Gambling in an amusement hall shall be unlawful unless the amusement hall is situated in an area [where] a resolution has been adopted by a local authority in accordance with section 65”; that “No licence shall be granted by the authority [which is the authority in this Bill] in respect of an amusement hall where gambling would be unlawful by reason of subsection (1)”; and third “...[an] ’amusement hall’ means any premises including any casino in which members of the public are permitted to gamble in person by the use of any machine or machines which are operated by means of the insertion or use of any currency (coin or note) or token or any card (including credit cards, debit cards, or charge card, or by use of any terminal (including fixed odds betting terminals) for a gambling process determined there or elsewhere".Finally, amendment No. 109 will insert a new section 67 stating, "Nothing in this Part prohibits or affects the activities of the National Lottery."

Essentially, this is intended to retain an entitlement of local authorities. We are all the time taking away the rights of local authorities. When I was Minister for justice, I gave local authorities powers to determine nightclub closing times and so on. We had local policing partnerships, which have been scrapped. Local authorities have been slowly cornered to the point where they have no function in this kind of thing, except through planning permission, and instead of that, fat cats are going to use whatever influence they have. They are going to say they have people working in these casinos now whose jobs need protection, even though they are entirely unlawful, and that they want to make money from these machines. That money is largely tax free and easily concealed and it is made, as I said, at the expense of the most vulnerable members of society. We do not see wealthy businessmen spending an hour on a stool in a place in O'Connell Street. We do not see people who are well-to-do there. It is people on the margins who are exploited in this way.

Looking generally at the Bill, while I do not want to be disorderly, it is not one to control or restrict gambling. Rather, it is a Bill to permit and encourage it. We are going down the same road as the United Kingdom, and if anybody here watches satellite TV to the extent I do, they will know that virtually everything is infected by gambling. Cat charities run bingos and donkey sanctuaries run this, that and the other. Housewives at home are told it is fun to play panda bingo, or whatever kind of bingo it is. A huge industry is going on and I believe that this Bill, by way of general comment, is to enable rather than control. Moreover, in one specific aspect, the abolition of local authorities' rights in this matter, the Bill is a step backwards. I commend amendments Nos. 107 to 109, inclusive, to the House.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the second time I have spoken on this Bill. I hate to disagree with Senator McDowell but I think it is good legislation. When I read it, I thought it was a step forward. The major changes in legislation in this area have not been taken into consideration in the past 20, 30 or 40 years, and we are bringing forward legislation that will change matters for the better. This entire world has moved quickly and I am deeply concerned about where it is going. The issue I raise relates to digital adverts, how that will tie into this legislation and where that will, I hope, be restricted. When platforms run adverts focused on online gambling that could affect kids or teenagers are coming on platforms very early in the morning, it is about how we can look at controlling that.

Last Monday morning, I was taking my four kids to school. We have Spotify in the car, so they can pick a song and away we go. When they picked a song, an advert for a bookmaker popped up, at 8.30 a.m. We had to spend 30 seconds listening to that. Spotify and all the other platforms need to be regulated and we have to make sure the adverts they run, which I think are often directed towards kids and teenagers, need to be monitored and looked at. I am the father of four kids who are all in school, and my eight-year-old was asking me what the advert was about. That is not good enough. We need to see how we can change the profile of how the gambling regime affects us in everything we do and in every walk of life. The world has changed so quickly and it is not about going to the bookie's any more. Nobody goes to the bookie's or gambling casinos any more. They can just use a phone. We need to see how we can restrict the advertising levels. The fact these platforms, including music platforms such as Spotify, can do what they are doing is sinful. I have looked into it. It is not reflected in their policies that gambling is dangerous, but it fundamentally is.

Will this legislation, which is so important to our society, step into that arena? Will it make sure that when I take my kids to school once this legislation is passed, they will not have to listen to a Paddy Power advert on Spotify? It is not good enough. We need to make sure something is done to protect our youth in society, and what is there at the moment is not good enough.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I dtús báire, gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an sárobair atá déanta aige agus a fhoireann ar an mBille seo. Feicim gur éist siad leis na daoine a bhí ag labhairt faoi na fadhbanna a raibh acu leis an mBille. Tá mé thar a bheith buíoch de as ucht na leasuithe atá déanta ag an Rialtas. Tá mé ag tnúth go mór le díospóireacht ar an mBille seo. Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille agus na leasuithe.

On Senator McDowell's amendments, I do not for a moment want the kind of gambling regime that is in the UK to come to this jurisdiction. Anybody who goes into a pub anywhere in London, elsewhere in England or wherever it might be can see the blight posed by those one-armed bandits to which he referred. They are a horrible part of the pub culture in England and I would not want to see that. I also agree with much of what the Senator said about casinos in a city context, but I do not agree with the suggestion the Bill is designed to enable gambling. We have been living in the absence of any proper regulation of gambling in this State for many years, and the Bill is trying to put shape on a situation where, at the same time that those casinos and one-armed bandits exist on the one hand, there is also gambling that is intrinsically linked into important industries that have a social context, such as horse racing. It is trying to pitch the balance between those two areas to allow people to engage in what is not antisocial or problematic behaviour against the fact certain organisations manipulate the situation that exists in Ireland and exploit those who have difficulties with addiction to gambling and so on.

I must say, I have missed the panda bingo adverts the Senator mentioned, but I do not want to see them either. Of course, part and parcel of the Bill relates to the protection of Irish consumers from late-night television advertising or the online advertising to which Senator Lombard referred and, in particular, to the protection of underage people. That is why I welcome the fact that, even as we debate this legislation, and I look forward to its completion, a regulation designate is in place. This legislation is going to be implemented quickly, and the procedures and structures are in place to allow it to get off the ground quickly.

Senator McDowell also talked about how we have stripped powers from local authority members and I absolutely agree, but let us not pretend that is recent. That has been going on since the Local Government Act 2001 and the Planning and Development Act 2000, when significant local democratic powers were taken away from members of local authorities, with many of them vested subsequently in faceless officials who are accountable to no one but the Custom House. I often say to people in my area that the county managers, as they were previously known, or the chief executives, as they are now, will never knock on their door and ask them what they think about something, yet all the decision-making power at local level is vested in these individuals and the people who work under their control.We talk proudly in a European context about the value of subsidiarity and the importance of making decisions as locally as possible. Notwithstanding that fact, we have a totally dysfunctional local government system in this country. Right through the creation of Irish water and in recent legislation I have spoken on in this House, we have been stripping away powers from the people elected at local level to make decisions for their communities. It is a shameful vista that has been perpetuated by government after government, including, respectfully, the one of which Senator McDowell was a member. It has happened under the policies of my party, his former party and others that have been in government. It will be a mammoth task to turn this around but it is definitely something we should be doing. I do not know whether amendment No. 2 will achieve that but I acknowledge the principle behind it in that regard.

I agree 100% that we should trust the members of local government. Councillors are probably the hardest-working politicians. They are certainly the ones with the fewest resources and supports at an official level, and they are also the ones closest to the people they represent. Despite this, at central level – Ireland probably has the most centralised administration in the EU – we fundamentally disrespect the role they have and refuse to give them the powers to do the job they need to do. I have said time and again that we have relegated local authority members, namely county and city councillors, from being actual members of local government to being ambassadors to the chief executive, the director of services or the official in their local authority. Quite simply, it is disgraceful. We should undo this but I do not know whether amendment No. 2 will achieve that, notwithstanding the principle behind it. I wanted to acknowledge that and what Senator McDowell has said in that regard.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to be guided by the Cathaoirleach now because I, too, want to talk about private clubs. We have an amendment in this regard, amendment No. 38, which does not seem to be grouped with any other. I agree with Senator McDowell. If the Cathaoirleach wishes to indulge me or tell me he will have the subject matter brought up somewhere else, he may do so.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sure. The Senator may go ahead. He is fine.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Great.

Senator McDowell has made many points we totally agree with.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is not allowed to speak about the amendment directly but just talk in the round.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will talk in the round. I agree with Senator McDowell. He mentioned the report Regulating Gaming in Ireland, published in 2006. Its authors outlined their concerns about private clubs. He mentioned his own amendments. It is time that we regulated the private clubs. When the Minister of State set out with this legislation, he was attempting to do so, but there is still an anomaly with private clubs, their membership and what people can do when they sign up as members. I would welcome the Minister of State's response-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is speaking about amendment No. 38. If he can avoid it, it would be-----

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am avoiding it as best I can. I am only repeating what Senator McDowell said in his contribution. If he can say it, surely I can, if it is okay with the Cathaoirleach.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sure.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not repeat any word that was said, if that is okay with Senator Ward.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go ahead.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wait with bated breath to hear what the Minister of State has to say about private clubs, which have been raised before me by colleagues whom the Cathaoirleach already mentioned. However, it is time that gambling was taken seriously.

There was engagement with Senator Lombard on advertising. I have an amendment in this regard, amendment No. 116, which is also not grouped, and I want the direction of the Cathaoirleach on whether we are going to discuss the advertising of gambling now. I agree 100% with Senator Lombard. I will not repeat what he said in case Senator Ward gives out to me. Previously in this House, during the Covid pandemic, I mentioned that parents were coming to me about explaining what gambling was to their six- and seven-year-olds. That is on the record of the House, so maybe Senator Lombard was copying what I said at the time.

With regard to gambling advertising, we have introduced a watershed in this Bill. It does not go far enough, however. It begins at 9 p.m. and will not cover what Senator Ward referred to, which is late night advertising, nor will it cover the bingo advertising that Senator McDowell mentioned, because 9 p.m., being the time people settle down to look at programmes on television, is when they are hit with the advertisements. We need a 24-hour ban. We have an amendment in that respect and I hope to get to speak about it shortly. This was brought up by another Member and I felt it only right to contribute.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As one of a trio of Senators, including Senators Wall and Cassells, who raised this matter and called for this legislation day after day in the Seanad on the Order of Business and so on, I congratulate the Minister of State on introducing this legislation in its totality and for his steadfastness in the face of very wealthy and powerful vested interests. It is to his eternal credit that we have this legislation and have got to this point without giving way to those vested interests in the process. Of course, nothing is perfect. In this regard, I agree with Senator Wall's latter point in that I, too, would like a watershed later than 9 p.m.

Much has been achieved. It is important that we have the gambling regulator and the watershed, and it is also important that we protect our young people, including against all that goes with free betting. The gambling regulator will do a lot of that.

I was unable to hear Senator McDowell's exposition on his amendment. Like Senator Ward, I take Senator McDowell's point on local government. In the latter part of his contribution, which I did hear, he referred to the progressive diminution of powers and the centralisation of power within local executives and at national government level to the detriment of local democracy. The Senator made that point well and I agree with him. Senator Ward made the point, too.

Like Senator Ward, I will be interested in hearing the Minister's response. My primary concern is that we get this right for potential victims, of whom there are so many. We do not need to go back to a Second Stage speech. We are in this room tonight because we are serious about this matter and have painfully gained knowledge of the need for the legislation and how pernicious gambling addiction is. We know the people who have been ruined in our communities and families who have suffered so much. There is good attendance here, by average standards. Every one of us is here because we regard this matter as serious.

I am interested in knowing whether the Minister of State believes Senator McDowell's amendment would achieve the objectives of the Bill. That, in essence, has to be the ultimate consideration. Accepting that there is a diminution of local government powers, we must err on the side of effectiveness in this instance. I await with interest the Minister of State's response. In this instance, our objective must be none other than to ensure that we protect as many as possible from the affliction that is gambling and save potential victims. I am aware that the legislation refers to the social fund and such measures to deal with victims, including recovering victims. These will be referred to in later contributions.

I congratulate the Minister of State unequivocally on holding firm on this, with no nonsense. We held the line. For years, this was not done. It is good that it was. I am proud as a Government Senator that we are achieving our objective, but we will not have done so until we pass the legislation.

I accept the basic premise of Senator McDowell's amendment on the diminution of local government powers, but I want to hear the analysis of the Minister of State and his advisers as to what will comprise the best way to protect our people from the affliction that is gambling.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is apt that I follow my colleague Senator Joe O'Reilly in noting all the work and all the contributions made by him, Senator Wall and me. At the very start of the term of this Seanad, four and a half years ago during the Covid pandemic, the three of us attended many online meetings with gambling support groups pressing for this legislation.It is to his credit that the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, has stayed the course in compiling such detailed and very much-needed legislation. I commend the Minister of State on ensuring its passage and making sure it got to this stage. I hope we see it passed and brought into law because the pressing need for it is greater now than ever. All of the research that has been produced states those who suffer from addictions grossly understate the reality, and that is not just here but in the UK and the United States. Only last week, it was actually indicated in reports that were published and covered in the newspapers the impact of advertising on the young people of the country and the fact they now accept it as a norm in watching sport. What a very sad society where young people see the proliferation of gambling advertising as now being part of the norm of watching sporting activity. Why? Because that proliferation has been allowed to fester and grow, in particular in the sport of soccer, and it is very regrettable and sad.

What is even more regrettable has been the conduct of some Members in both Houses acting as lobbyists for the industry in trying to water down the legislation that the Minister of State has brought in, and in trying to cajole and coerce their colleagues in putting in amendments to water it down. Shame on those Members. I ask them to come to some of the gambling addiction meetings where I see people lose everything, not just money but family, businesses and homes. People in these Houses are trying to say that it is only a bit of fun and a bit of sport, and trying to accuse the Minister of State and those of us who would advocate for reform and the need for legislation as being a nanny state. Far from it. As I keep saying, it is a worse addiction than drugs, alcohol or anything. When I see the size of the amendment booklet, it nearly fills me with despair but I know the Minister of State, in making sure this will ensure its passage through, will have stayed the course. I welcome any robust debate we have in these Houses to make sure that what the Minister of State puts through does not have unintended consequences and that makes sure we are not impeding those who can gamble responsibly and enjoy it. I have said before that I am the worst punter in Ireland and that is my choice if I wish to put a bet on, but the manner in which an industry that has not been reformed in decades has been able to use new media tools to target susceptible people is just wrong.

What was even worse were the threats then made by those in the horse racing industry in particular to say the industry would collapse if the Minister of State's legislation went through the Houses. Anything but. Of course, this was the threat made by those who control TV and whose income is dependent on the money of gambling companies. If HRI has found itself with a business model that is completely supported by gambling money, that is its problem. It should put more effort into making sure those people came through the turnstile rather than sitting on bar stools putting money on horse racing. There is no one against the sport of horse racing but I question those who have found themselves in hock to gambling companies that now fund them. That is a sad state of affairs. It was sad to see many other sports follow suit as well.

I look forward to this debate tonight and tomorrow as we go through the amendments, and I pay tribute to those Members who did not bend the knee to those who phoned or emailed them to do so. I pay tribute to the Minister of State for standing resolutely against some of the nonsense that was spoken about.

I also wish to make a point, and I say this as someone who has worked a long time in the media industry. It was pitiful to see some of the tabloid newspapers in this country use their front pages to say that the horse racing industry could collapse because of this legislation. They did it because they too are in hock to the advertising money of the bookies, which funds them because their business model is broken too. The multibillion euro gambling industry is now the oxygen machine for so many things profiting off the backs of those susceptible people. It was wrong. The media can be well done coming in here saying when we are wrong but I am saying to those tabloid newspapers that ran those front pages, shame on you. You have no scruples - none. You did it because you are in hock to the bookies for their advertising money and the racing supplements, and that needs to be called out as well. I look forward to the rest of the debate, and well done to the Minister of State.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator. I welcome the delegation here as guests of our colleague and friend, Senator Vincent P. Martin. They are Dr. Shane Colclough, Ms Yvonne Colclough, Mr. Richie Byrne, Ms Cecilia Byrne, Ms Anne Sheridan and Mr. Brian Sheridan, who is also the president of the Wine Society of Ireland. They are very welcome, and they can be justifiably proud of Senator Martin.

I also welcome members of Trinity Young Fine Gael who are here tonight as well. Céad míle fáilte roimh gach duine.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is very welcome. I will speak in general terms and then specifically to Senator McDowell's amendments.

In general terms, we welcome the Bill. It has been far too long in the making. Sinn Féin's position is we want to see a stronger Bill than the one we have. We have a particular concern about the Minister of State's denial to date to ensure that at least one member of the gambling authority has a lived experience of gambling and the damage it can do. I am a little bit at a loss as to why the Minister of State is opposing that but I hope we can tease it out, and maybe he might have a change of mind on that.

The fact that there are so many Government amendments means there is room to actually amend this Bill here in the Seanad. Earlier today, this Chamber was effectively just a rubber stamp for the planning Bill. I hope the Minister of State does not give us a repeat of that here. He has a great way to start because Senator McDowell's arguments are very well founded. I have not actually heard any argument against them so far.

It is outrageous. I remember the 1980s, unfortunately. I was a kid at the time but I remember those places having to close and then the fact they have been running for years afterwards, and they are a complete parasitical scourge on working-class communities. They should not be allowed. This is a perfectly reasonable amendment to ensure local authorities have that power. If anyone here can disagree with that, I would like to hear why. In the spirit of compromise, I am genuinely going to approach this on a cross-party basis. I acknowledge the incredible work of Senator Joe O'Reilly, Senator Cassells and Senator Mark Wall, who have championed this for years. We need to acknowledge that on a cross-party basis.

I absolutely agree with the previous speaker with regard to the small handful of Senators who have effectively put themselves up as Senators-for-sale for the gambling industry. Let us call it what it is. It is an absolute disgrace. The Chicken Licken Senators tell us the horse racing industry is going to collapse if we do not do what they say. This is nonsense and I hope we will reject that roundly here.

These amendments from Senator McDowell are very well founded. Let us be frank, for a Sinn Féin Member to say that, it does not happen very often, but it is absolutely right in this case. We should all be able to come around to the table, agree on this and get this Bill off to a good start. I ask the Minister of State to please not reject these amendments.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Briefly, on amendment No. 1, this is simply a technical amendment. On amendments Nos. 2 and 107 to 109, inclusive, I thank the Senator for his amendments but I cannot accept them. His amendments seek to introduce a provision that is similar to sections 12 and 13 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, and for related matters. Those sections require a local authority to adopt a resolution to permit gambling in its relevant area. Unfortunately, local authorities are not exercising this power in a consistent manner, as pointed out by the Senator himself, and do not co-ordinate with each other when they do so. This has led to a significant degree of inconsistency, where loose resolutions have been adopted in some areas and not others.To address this issue, section 96 provides that the authority must consult local authorities when determining whether a premises is suitable to provide gambling activities. It must also consider the proximity of any premises to schools. I intend to amend section 96 to strengthen this provision to provide that this consultation shall be a function of the local authority and, separately, that the authority must consult the relevant fire safety authority when considering the suitability of a premises. In this context, there will be a reciprocal obligation enshrined in the Bill to ensure consultation and co-operation between the authority and local authorities concerning the location of premises and whether gambling may take place in a particular area.

The local authorities have been really inconsistent in this regard throughout the country and even within their own local authority areas. My own town, Enniscorthy, used to have its own independent town council which did not adopt the 1956 Act. Town councils were regrettably abolished, which was another step in undermining local democracy and something with which I certainly did not agree. I agree with all the comments about how our councillors have been undermined in the past 20 years and more. Subsequently, a small casino, or whatever you want to call it, opened in the town and went out of business quickly thereafter. The argument, however, was that because the town council was abolished, the resolution no longer applied. I disagreed; the geographic area was still there. That was the case.

This leads on to the issue that every ten-year-old is going around with one-arm bandits and casinos in his or her back pocket now. That is the problem. The situation has gone way beyond whether a particular premises is opening to provide those services because they are literally everywhere. We are trying to bring in a consistency whereby every premises that offers such a service will have to apply for a licence. There are strict criteria within this legislation if someone is to get a licence.

Credit card gambling was mentioned. Credit card gambling will be abolished under this legislation. Places will be very much controlled, such as the times and locations of where they are going to be. Private members’ clubs will have to be licensed under this legislation now as well. We are very clear on that. I have always been acutely aware of the Senators’ views on getting licensed those private members’ clubs which provide anything like that.

The whole area around local authorities trying to govern this area has failed miserably throughout the country. We want to put in strict controls consistently throughout the country. This will help to prevent and control gambling offline and online. The online demand services will be covered. Senator Tim Lombard raised the issue of his eight-year-old child hearing gambling advertisements while listening to Spotify playlists early in the morning. That is something that has to be stopped and this legislation will help to stop it all. Gambling is a risky activity.

I welcome the Senators’ comments who are supporting this legislation. There has been an extraordinary amount of lobbying to try to water down this legislation. Nearly every letter that comes in starts off by stating that they fully agree with what I am doing except the piece that applies to them. We have stayed steadfast, however. We have also listened to people where amendments need to be made. There is a small amendment to help the bingo because, in fairness, it would have been unfairly caught by a previous definition of gambling. The amendment allows that situation to be able to continue.

This overall Bill is very important. I will address the issue of advertisements later when we discuss amendment No. 38. While I hear the Senator’s concerns, I feel that ship has sailed in this country in terms of local authorities and their inconsistency but also the fact that every ten-year-old and every person who is susceptible to gambling are going around with it in their back pocket. We must have a better way of addressing gambling in this country in all its forms rather than simply depending on a local authority and the planning department of a local authority to enforce its interpretation of legislation.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I welcome the discussion on the amendments I have put forward. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to the Chamber this evening. I further welcome what Senator Paul Gavan has said in particular as well as what other members have said in respect of the principle of this legislation and the amendments I have tabled.

The Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 provided that a one-arm-bandit-casino-type operation could not be run unless the local authority in the area said so. It gave local authorities the right to say that, in respect of all or parts of their local authority functional area, a resolution could permit it to happen. That is what I said about Bray and Bundoran and the like. It was said these areas are holiday resorts where people go on holidays. They do not spend their whole life there. They enjoy an evening on the one-arm bandits, and it is not socially damaging or an exploitation of an entire section of the community. Those decisions were made. The Minister of State has said there were uneven results throughout the country. Yes, there were. Bray operated dodgems and one-arm bandits, which was fine. It did not mean Rathnew had to have them as well.

In those days, as has been pointed out, the urban district councils existed which had a much narrower focus. The Minister of State said the urban district council in Enniscorthy said no to any gambling casinos in its area. The funny thing is that the reasoning the Minister of State has just advanced was put before, I think slightly misguided, District Court judges to the effect that because Enniscorthy district council ceased to exist, the ban in that area ceased to operate. That is not the case because the fundamental question, if it did cease to exist, is whether Wexford County Council had passed a resolution which authorised one-arm bandits to be operated either in Enniscorthy or in other places such as Rosslare or wherever else it might be in its area.

I listened carefully to the Minister of State, who suggested that the right of local authorities to refuse or to permit gambling operations in a specific area only and not in another area was unevenly applied. It was not unevenly applied. The entire city of Dublin said "No". People were told it was all over, to take their machines and get out. There was a huge row about it at the time. People said they had employees in amusement halls on O’Connell Street and the like. It was challenged in court. They said they had been there for 20 years and suddenly a group of councillors were telling them it is all over and that nowhere in Dublin would this be permitted. There was nothing uneven or unsatisfactory about that.

The problem arose, however, because money started to talk afterwards. Two things happened. The Revenue Commissioners, without looking at the 1956 Act, started issuing permits, a small disc, which had to be stuck on to each machine saying the duty had been paid on the machine. Unscrupulous lawyers then went before District Court judges to say these are licensed machines. An Garda Síochána did not stand up against them to say they could not be operated, whether they had 1,000 Revenue stickers on them or not, because this was an area in which it could not happen. Money spoke and money has been speaking since. More and more money has been poured into more and more premises in the city of Dublin establishing this emporium or that casino right across the city. No one has ever stood up for the 1956 Act to say that none of this is lawful, except for one or two occasions of which I am aware in which An Garda Síochána attempted to enforce confiscation of machines. I do not know what happened to those efforts.

Can anyone say that there is something in principle wrong with the members of a local authority saying to this gambling authority that by all means it can license gambling but not in its area or not in Ballyfermot, Coolock or wherever, and that it may put it in some other place, like Bray or wherever else?It is glib of the Minister of State to say it had patchy results. It did not have patchy results until people deliberately started to ignore the law. It did not have patchy results when the casinos on O'Connell Street were closed. It had patchy results when they reopened and money talked. I do not know how money talks but I know there is enormous money in this. It has found its way into the processes of Government in the sense that the power of these people to operate elaborate premises in Dublin without any lawful authority has been shown in practice.

The Minister of State said that instead of this, he is introducing something that is, unfortunately, entirely diluted. Section 96 states, "Where section 95 applies, the [gambling] Authority shall, subject to subsection (2), determine whether a premises where it is proposed to provide a gambling activity is suitable for use for that activity". It is about the suitability of the premises and requires us to consider if a premises is well constructed. Let us go on to examine what is in section 96. The assessment of suitability is undertaken having regard to "the information and documentation furnished under section 95", and I will come back to that. The section also requires having regard to "whether the premises concerned communicates internally with other premises in which a gambling activity is not being provided". So what? A one-purpose casino is not affected by that provision. There is also reference to "the existence, in the vicinity of the premises, of other premises in respect of which an in-person gambling licence is attached". If there is nowhere in the vicinity, that ground does not arise. Also required to be considered is "the proximity of the premises to schools". For heaven's sake. Let us consider the quays or O'Connell Street in Dublin. Are we worried about Belvedere College? This is nonsense. It is not going to work. The authority is not going to state that there is a school on Parnell Square or wherever else and an applicant cannot have a casino near a school. Where in any city is far from a school? Practically speaking, nowhere is far from a school.

The question we must ask is whether this is an enabling piece of legislation. If we look at the criteria which are established for the approval of premises under section 96 of the Bill, anybody who puts a good deal of money into a single-purpose premises that is not next door to a school and where there is no immediate competition in the street or in the vicinity will get a green light as regards the suitability of the premises. That is what this is providing for. It is enabling. The section asks if a premises is suitable, whether it communicates with any other premises and whether it does this, that and the other. If not, it will be considered clearly suitable. That is the policy set out in the section.

Let us look back at section 95, which is a precondition for the operation of section 96. Section 95 states that when you are applying for gambling activity in person, you have to provide documentation identifying the location of the premises on a map, documentary evidence that the proposed licensee is the beneficial owner or occupier of the premises and details of the layout of the premises, including all entry and exit points; the lighting to be provided on the premises; the size and location of the proposed area where gambling is to be conducted and the position of equipment, including games machines or tables, to be used in the premises; the security systems in place, including closed-circuit TV, for both internal and external security; non-gambling areas and features to separate and distinguish such areas from areas where gambling activity will be conducted; and the size and location of external space, signs and lighting. That is effectively a checklist of things and if applicants comply with them, they will get a permit. That is what we are dealing with. We should not cod ourselves. The section does not state that an emporium on the quays or on O'Connell Street is going to be deemed unsuitable anymore. The legislation does not state that. It is codding ourselves to believe that local authorities did not operate their power effectively when they did. It is also codding ourselves to say that sections 95 and 96 are going to restrict very big investors who have put in a lot of money to hire architects and engineers. They will have the lighting and the CCTV. They will have everything right and will make sure there is no school on the same street and whatever else is required. In such circumstances, they will get their premises. One of the grounds is that there is nowhere else in the vicinity. All you have to do is to find virgin space and you are home and dried and your application will succeed. That is what we are dealing with.

I will go back to Enniscorthy, which was mentioned by the Minister of State. What was wrong with the people of Enniscorthy being able to call for no gambling in their town? How was it that somebody came into that town and saw an opportunity even though under the Gaming and Lotteries Act there was no resolution for Enniscorthy? That person opened a premises. How did that person persuade the local district court to allow that to happen? How did whoever ran the premises for the first time get the Revenue Commissioners to issue stamps to put on all the machines? What good was done for the people of Enniscorthy? I can get as passionate as Senator Cassells. I ask the Minister of State what good was done for the people of Enniscorthy when the law of the land was torn up and the premises to which he has referred opened. Is it serving a social need? Is it improving the lives of the people of Enniscorthy? Is it giving them good choices to use their money in a way that pleases them? Is the premises acting as a parasite on those people and exploiting quasi-addictive behaviour? The same people would go into the casino on dole day or children's allowance day to fritter away their money and hand it over to the proprietor of that institution. Has Wexford County Council adopted a resolution under the present Act to state that anywhere in the county is suitable for the operation of casinos? I very much doubt it has. How, therefore, is it lawful that this example has taken place? How has it, in practical terms, become lawful on O'Connell Street and the quays, in Phibsborough, on Dorset Street and elsewhere in Dublin? All of the working-class suburbs are now festooned with these establishments. They are not in Foxrock, Donnybrook or Ballsbridge. They are in areas where there is access to easy money from people who are at the lower end of the social and economic ladder and who can be exploited with the greatest ease. That is what is happening.

I listened carefully to what the Minister of State said as the reasons why not. Let us remember that the argument is as follows. I want to say one more thing before I move to that. Local authorities have at the moment the power to say "Yea" or "Nay" under Part 3 of this Act. That is the law at the moment. As far as I am concerned, there are enormous parts of the country where these places are being operated and there is no resolution in being. They are, in other words, being operated in breach of the law and in breach of what this House and the other House have established for half a century and more as a basic requirement, which is that the people of the local area have the right to determine whether or not they will allow these premises in all or in part of their areas. That is the status quo. To say it has been run patchily or inconsistently is simply not true.I challenge the Minister of State to tell me if Wexford has adopted a resolution for the entire county, which includes Enniscorthy. I would gamble a few bob that it has not.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure we are allowed to do that anymore.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has not. I would put a lot of money on that it has not. Therefore, under Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, whatever happens in any part of Wexford, despite the abolition of the urban district councils and the like, is unlawful. What can a local authority do? The only people who can act in this matter are members of An Garda Síochána. They can prosecute. They can seize machines under this Act. There are extensive powers of seizure and they are not doing it for some reason. They have been bamboozled by wealthy proprietors of these establishments and doubtful, dodgy lawyers who have suggested the Revenue Commissioners have issued licences for these machines. That is what has happened as a matter of practicality and that was not the fault of the local authorities.

I do not see why the then Minister, Phil Hogan, introduced legislation to abolish urban district councils and town councils. There is, however, no reason whatsoever arising from their abolition to draw the conclusion that the entire county council, or if it chooses the municipal area of a county council, should not have the choice as to whether we have these machines in Navan. There is absolutely no reason that should not be the case. The powers the Minister of State has envisaged under section 96 for vetting these premises will still exist. I have no problem with the gambling authority saying this particular premises is unsuitable because it is right next door to two schools. I have no problem with them saying this premises is totally unsuitable because it interconnects with a youth club or something like that and therefore is unsuitable. I have no problem with them saying it is insufficiently secure or there are not sufficient means of excluding 17-year-olds or whatever from going into these premises. All of that can exist but one extra ingredient can be added, which is the people and the area, through their local authority representatives, have said that this is an area in which the power to run these kind of premises should or should not be permitted.

As a matter of logic, we cannot simply say that it has been patchy. It was not patchy when the UDC in Enniscorthy said no. There were no casinos there. It was not patchy when all of the places closed down in Dublin. What has changed is that money is talking and it is big money that is talking. Other people have mentioned private clubs. They are a facade for criminality because they do not operate under this Act, which only permits gaming among ordinary people participating in games where all the people's chances of winning, including the banker as is actually provided in the Act, are equal. I know that in this city, gambling clubs were established pretending to be private members' clubs where, apart from the working-class people who are hammered and exploited in the casinos that have grown up, people with large wodges of money have ruined themselves at poker tables while addicted to playing poker with people who are twice as clever as they are.

I am saying this to the Minister of State because I do not want to name a single person but I do know that very wealthy people established those clubs and very wealthy people seem to have persuaded the Garda authorities not to exercise their powers under this Act so that if you go into some of them you will find roulette tables where any person going in does not have the chance of becoming the banker. They are running blackjack tables where you cannot go up and say I would like to run the table for the next half hour if you do not mind. They are profit-making enterprises by people who have ruthlessly run these places.

Sport has been contaminated by this gambling culture; it really has been. I have come across cases where people are playing lower division soccer who are feeding gambling habits, throwing games and betting on who will get the first goal in fairly basic Irish football. I recall that in my own profession as a barrister, one colleague was absolutely ruined by gambling. He was thrown out of his profession. I have seen solicitors' firms where one partner has brought the whole firm down with a crash, leaving the whole family devastated by gambling. I fully accept that the Minister of State's answer to a lot of what I am saying will be that is happening anyway and we have to control it. I accept that and I accept the criticisms of Members of this House levelled at those who have tried to water down this legislation and to liberalise further the gambling that is envisaged in this by pretending the horse racing industry could collapse if we do not control it.

When you look at what is happening in Britain and when the Minister of State tells me it is not going to happen here when money talks, money does talk. Money spoke for the private members' card clubs in Dublin. Money spoke that the law was never enforced in relation to them. I am deeply pessimistic, I have to say. I am really pessimistic that a valuable opportunity is being lost here to protect vulnerable people. The most vulnerable are those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder, who are most vulnerable to the amusement hall or casino culture. The wealthy are not in there. The middle classes are rarely in there-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Every point the Senator has made has been well made but I remind the Senator this is not a Second Stage debate and the amendments we are discussing are related to local authorities.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I feel passionate about this.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with him and I am not doubting anything he is saying-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reason I feel passionate is I have been given answers as to why these amendments should not be accepted, which are that local authorities proved incapable of operating a system. Local authorities were never given the function of operating the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. They were never given that function. It was members of the Garda who were to police the Act. They were given-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Once the Senator is talking about local authorities in relation to this, I am more than happy to let him continue. I ask him not to stray away from the amendments we are dealing with.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that I strayed.

Local authorities were never given the function under the Gaming and Lotteries Act of policing this. They could not send down some lad from the council head office to say there is something wrong here. The only people who were given a function to police this were the police. To lay blame at the feet of local authorities is wrong. The only function local authorities had was to say yea or nay, it can or cannot happen in all or part of our local authority area. They were given this one-off right to say it is either totally illegal or it is not totally illegal for somebody to apply for an amusement hall licence in our area. To lay responsibility at the feet of local authority members or local authorities in general for what has happened in Enniscorthy just does not stand up as an argument. To take away a veto from local authorities over what does and does not happen in their area is a retrograde step.Iappeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. What harm would it do if Dublin City Council or Wexford County Council said that is all very well but they can only run these places in Rosslare Strand and Gorey or wherever and they are the only areas they will accept it? What harm could it do to leave that as part of our law? It is not a divided responsibility. It is giving local communities the right to say yes or no to the general availability of these premises. Sections 95 and 96 are no answer to the point I have raised. They are purely a vetting operation. Why consult with local authorities? What can the local authority do? Who does the authority consult with, by the way? Does it go to the county manager or chief executive officer, or does it have to go to the members of the local authority to discuss, for example, Mr. McDowell's plan to run a casino on Main Street, Enniscorthy? Is it seriously to be the case that the duty to consult involves a duty to talk to the members of the local authority and to find out what their wishes are and to respect those wishes? No, it certainly does not. Therefore, this is a retrograde step.

Much of this legislation is good but one thing is certain. The Government will not close down the emporia all over Dublin under this legislation. There will not be less of them; there will be more of them. The criteria under which licences will be granted will be expansive and not in any sense constrained. There will be more and more casinos because a shopping list of criteria has been set out in sections 95 and 96 that people will say they satisfy. They will say there is no school beside it and they have invested a lot of money in this proposal, so please give them the licence. Otherwise, they will be down to the Four Courts to dispute any refusal of a licence from the authority. The authority will ask on what grounds could they say that the members of the local authority were not keen on this or were divided on this. A majority might have said "Yes" while the minority said "No". Let us suppose that is the ground on which they have chosen to say "No", having consulted the local authority. If it was my casino, I would be down to the Four Courts in double-quick time to get a judicial review and to say it is not a relevant consideration for refusing my premises as a casino.

This is an enabling Bill as far as gambling and casinos are concerned. The Government will not reduce the number. It will increase if something is not done to give local authorities the right to say "No".

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I absolutely agree with the previous speaker. There is an irony here. Everyone who spoke initially said that what has happened to local democracy is awful, none of us agree with that and we want to see more powers restored. Yet, if Senator McDowell pushes this to a vote, those on the Government side will vote to diminish local authority powers. That is the fact of the matter. How on earth do they justify that? Second, to what end would they do that? What is the benefit of taking away the democratic right of a local authority to say "No" to a gambling institution? Why on earth would the Government vote for that?

My last point is Senator McDowell made a statement in his first contribution, with which I am not agreeing or disagreeing, that in his view, this Bill is about permitting and promoting gambling and not controlling it. I think I am right in saying that. If the Minister of State opposes this amendment, then this is much more about permitting gambling. As Senator McDowell has said, section 96 does not allow him in most cases, in effect, to stop these institutions setting up. For all of those reasons, I ask colleagues to think again. The points made are extremely valid. We can and must do better. For God's sake, if Government Members meant what it said about the diminution of local authority powers, then why on earth would it vote against this amendment to take away local councillor's powers, bearing in mind, we might be looking for votes in a couple of months' time from those councillors although that is not why I am making the point? Seriously, Members should not come in here and tell us they are objecting to a diminution of local democracy and then vote against amendments, therefore reducing local democratic powers. It is nonsense.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to mention the NUI graduates-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will not mention them for now, Senator McDowell. I thank Senator Gavan for his contribution.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be brief as I have made many of my arguments. We just spent almost an hour and half talking about physical premises and what are one-armed bandits in physical premises. The casinos are in every bedroom in the country. Every ten- or 12-year old who has a phone has a casino in his or her house. That is what we are trying to address here. There is this idea that there are all these big money people who want to open up physical casinos on every estate in the country. The people with big money are putting it into online gambling and the proliferation of gambling right across the country. That is why this legislation is so important. It is not promoting or enabling gambling, as Sinn Féin is trying to promote. They voted down this legislation in the Dáil. We would not even be here discussing this legislation without them. If Sinn Féin had its way, the wild west situation would continue. It was an extraordinary position to take.

I have made my arguments on this. Continuing to discuss the dangers of bricks-and-mortar casinos in this country is absolutely quaint. We have to get to grips with problem gambling in this country. It is on every phone in every house right across the country. We talk about the people in my home town. That casino, or whatever you want to call it, went out of business within a couple of months because nobody was going down to a physical premises to gamble. They were doing it on their phones. That is where they are doing it in every bloody house in my home town and right across the country. That is what we are addressing here. This legislation will get control of gambling in this country.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment deals with in-person gambling. That is different from what the Minister of State is now talking about, which is online gambling. This amendment is solely concerned with in-person gambling. He should get into his car, take a little drive around Dublin and look at how many of these places there are. They are mushrooming around the city. I fully accept that the Flutters of this world are probably much more concerned with online gambling and the big English and Irish gambling industries. The people with the hundreds of millions of euro are probably much more interested in running online gambling. However, I am talking about what I see with my own eyes, which is the gambling casinos that are increasing in number and complexity and which are different because of the definition the Minister of State put in the Bill that differentiates between in-person gambling and online gambling. I am talking about in-person gambling. It is very simple for a local authority to have a say in respect of whether in-person gambling institutions should be established. They cannot control what happens online and they do not intend to do so but they can say that not every working-class suburb of Dublin requires a casino established for dubious people to rake in money from naive people who are semi-addicted to spending their few euro every week, which they cannot afford to lose, in these institutions.

We do not need them. We did not have them in Dublin but now we do. With this Bill, they are going to continue to exist. I reiterate that if you try to close one of them down on the basis that Dublin City Council has passed a resolution after the passage of this Bill saying that it does not want them anymore, you will lose in the High Court the following day.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a simple question for the Minister of State to which I want a direct answer. How does taking away these powers from local authorities make things better?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have made all my arguments.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. Senator Ward wants to come in.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, on the section.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go ahead.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does section 1 contain the definitions? Perhaps I should come in on section 2.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are unable to discuss a section until the amendments to the section have been dispensed with, unless the matter is relevant to the amendments.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 14, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), the repeal of Part III of the Act of 1956 shall not take effect until Part 4 is brought into operation.”

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 to 37, inclusive, and 41 and 46 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, are technical amendments to include references to various other Acts in the Bill. These are necessary for the transitional measures and consequential amendments to other legislation later in the Bill. Amendment No. 41 again is a minor technical amendment to accurately reflect how modern bookmakers operate and to ensure consistency in language throughout the Bill. Amendment No. 46 is a minor drafting amendment recommended by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am right in saying amendment No. 31 is in this group, yes?

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 to 37, inclusive, and 41 and 46, so amendment No. 31 is in that group, yes.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 31 seeks to insert a reference to personal gaming devices in the list of what constitutes remote means. In the previous section of the debate, we discussed physical spaces, yet when we look at the online space, we are not fully doing what we need to do in that space either. For the purposes of this Bill as drafted, the Bill specifies that gambling by remote means can include using the Internet, a telephone or a television. The amendment seeks to expand on this provision with the explicit inclusion of personal gaming devices. In this amendment, gaming refers to the act of participating in video and computer games on a personal device which, in the majority of instances, is connected to the Internet.

Gaming is an incredibly popular activity, particularly with younger generations, and is at the forefront of contemporary popular culture. According to the IDA, the digital games market is booming, with the earnings of the gaming industry being many multiples of the film and television industry earnings in 2023. The development of online gaming has provided gamers with the opportunity to make in-app and in-game purchases. While, traditionally, an individual would have known precisely what he or she was buying and the value of the purchases within the context of a game, bundles of mystery items available for purchase within games, known as loot boxes, are becoming increasingly popular, especially with younger gamers. It is estimated that approximately half the gambling industry’s significant annual earnings are generated by micro transactions or in-app purchases such as loot boxes. The contents of a loot box are unknown to the user before purchase, which means they might contain something of value within a game or they might not. Whether the loot box is of value, maybe by allowing a gamer to unlock special characters, skins, equipment and so on, within a particular game is entirely down to chance, closely mimicking gambling. Given that a significant share of the gaming community are minors, it seems important that we should try to protect young people from early exposure to gambling behaviour.

A 2018 study by the York St John University established a clear link between loot box spending and the development of problem gambling among older adolescents, the links being of moderate to large magnitude and significantly stronger than the relationships observed in adults in earlier studies. Given the risks posed by these links, it seems pertinent that the legislation which will regulate gambling in Ireland ought to include an explicit reference to this pseudo-gambling activity.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 12 proposes a different definition of gaming. We actually recommend the UK definition of gaming. It seems to be slightly more open to adaptation to keep up with modern times. We need to be conscious of how gaming will evolve, especially for young children through such things as loot boxes in video games.

Amendment No. 19 defines as lotteries for the purpose of the legislation the commercial draw companies that frequently use a question of nominal difficulty to elicit as many entries as possible.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Ruane and Senator Gavan in this. I am aware of and have been contacted by many parents whose credit card details have been used. I know we are banning the use of credit cards for gambling in this Bill but we are not actually mentioning loot boxes and the effects they are having.Many parents have contacted me - and I am sure other Members of this House - whose credit card bills have risen due to loot boxes being used. The previous two speakers made an important contribution on their inclusion in the Gambling Regulation Bill and their effect on young people.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the two amendments that were discussed. They are sensible. Nowadays there are very elaborate activities whereby a person is asked to answer some stupid question, which then turns into a lottery. RTÉ does a lot of it. That must be dealt with. It is a lottery, and gaining access to a lottery by answering a moronic question correctly does not change it from being a lottery. I support that.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Ruane's amendments. It is vitally important that consoles and gaming devices are included in this legislation. They are what young people are using today. Whether it is an Xbox or a PlayStation, you can gamble online with those very easily.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to specifically speak to amendment No. 37, which proposes to insert a new subsection (4) into section 2 to amend the definition, or rather, to make reference to the definition of a "relevant payment", specifically in paragraph (c) of that definition. This is important, because in the course of the amendments to the Bill, there is reference to bingo-type offerings and games. Amendment No. 340 specifically refers to the limits on the amounts of money that can be spent on tickets and books of tickets for bingo. The proposed insertion of the new subsection (4) into section 2 also makes also refers to the word "bingo". Specifically, the new subsection (4) would exclude bingo. Amendment No. 37 seeks to insert the following:

A reference to a payment made to participate in a lottery in paragraph (c) of the definition of “relevant payment” includes, in the case of bingo, a reference to a payment made to purchase a ticket, or a book of tickets where the tickets in the book cannot be sold separately, to participate in bingo.

I do not have a difficulty with the amendment itself but I do have a difficulty with the fact that there is no definition of "bingo" in the legislation, either in the Bill as it is now or in any of the amendments the Government is bringing forward. That could potentially create a problem. How do we distinguish bingo from any other type of gaming operation, lottery or whatever it might be? It is interesting that when the heads of Bill that were created for the gambling control Bill 2013, a definition was proposed by the State at that point. I think the definition is probably incomplete, but it proposed:

“bingo” means a game where players mark off numbers on cards or screens (whether or not they pay an amount before the game commences) as the numbers are drawn randomly, the winner being the first to mark off all the numbers on the card or screen that are required to win, and it includes any version of that game, by whatever name called, including the playing of the game by electronic means or by remote communication.

That definition could be inserted into this Bill with a view to clarify the position regarding bingo. Things have been left out of that definition. For example, it only refers to numbers, and bingo can be played with letters, symbols or other devices to create commonality but the absence of any definition of bingo, either in the definitions section under section 2 or in the amendment No. 340 to Schedule 2 is potentially problematic.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When we get to that amendment.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is in reference to that, because this interpretation, as the Acting Chair will be aware, governs the entirety of the Act, including Schedule 2, which is being amended by amendment No. 340. I have not tabled an amendment to this effect but is it something to which the Minister of State could give consideration on Report Stage?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding amendment No. 31 in the name of Senators Ruane and Higgins, I certainly cannot disagree with almost all of the Senator's concerns. However, we are satisfied that the reference to "the internet" in paragraph (a) of the definition of "remote means" covers gaming devices and consoles as they inherently need access to the Internet to access online services such as apps and in-game services. We believe, are satisfied and advised that our definition does, in fact, cover gambling on gaming devices and consoles.

The Sinn Féin amendment was discussed in the Dáil. We were advised by the OPC that our definition works in the context of our Bill and that simply adopting the UK definition would not be suitable. We have consulted the United Kingdom's gambling authority when drafting the legislation and were advised not to follow the UK's 2005 Act wholesale.

Senator Ward raised the situation regarding bingo. One of the reasons the amendment for bingo was introduced is that, in the current definition, they would have been inadvertently caught because of the number of small little games that people often play. I certainly hear Senator Ward's concerns and will give further consideration as to whether a particular definition for the game of bingo is needed for clarification purposes.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I raise the point of gaming and in-app purchases. Obviously, I am speaking from a place of not fully understanding where app development can go but surely the Internet can be used to download a particular app, after which the app is on a person's phone or PlayStation. Sometimes apps can be potentially accessed, and that is a secondary point as some apps can be accessed without any Internet. The app itself needs the Internet but anything within that going forward may not need the Internet. We need to be able to future-proof against the ever-evolving industry in terms of apps and machine learning. We could say the same of telephones. I know some landlines are left in the country but most people are probably gambling on the Internet through their telephones. It would be very simple to add an explicit reference to gaming devices. There is no harm in adding it and it would future-proof us against the fact that the Internet is not needed to access some apps. The Internet may be needed to download the app initially, but the Internet will not always be needed to actually use particular functions within particular apps on gaming devices.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hear Senator Ruane's concerns where someone may download something, operate offline and then re-upload. My view is that this legislation will still cover those types of situations but I undertake to give it further consideration.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 18, line 13, after “raffle” to insert “, a quiz featuring an element of chance”.

I will withdraw this amendment with the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 21, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(b) a personal gaming device or console,”.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 9.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not agreed.