Olympic Entertainment Group Madis Jääger, CEO Dublin 9 October 2013
5 Reasons why Olympic is the best partner to work with in Ireland 1 2 3 4 Olympic being listed on the Tallinn and Warsaw Stock Exchange, has developed the highest reputation, is transparent in its approach to stakeholders and is monitored by a number of regulatory bodies. Olympic offers all its casino guests an entertainment experience and emphasises the importance of responsible gaming, with built in protections to cater for any problem gambling and to ensure fairness to all. Olympic has the finest, proven concept for the small and medium sized casinos tried and tested with consumers in 9 various European jurisdictions, including Estonia, Italy and Poland. Olympic is one of the innovators in establishing modern gaming technology, aimed at ensuring fairness to all customer and guarding against any criminal conduct. 5 Olympic has extensive experience of establishing and running flagship casinos. 2
Proposals for discussion Safe and controlled environment Responsible gaming Gaming equipment limitations Bar as integral part of entertainment Slots, tables and other gaming equipment to be operated under strict control and in safe environment protecting customers. No gaming equipment should be operated outside casinos or gaming arcades. Player registration, age limit, self-exclusion program, problem gambling hotline, visitor tracking system, employees training, social responsibility initiatives European practice is 5-7 slot machines per each gaming table, depending on market size, max 15 gaming tables would enable to operate up to 105 slot machines Not in line with international industry standards, greater clarity needed 3
Safe and controlled environment Gaming equipment only in the licensed gaming environment (casino and gaming arcade) It is practically impossible to fully control and regulate gaming in bars, pubs, shopping malls and other public places Category 2S licenses will have significant impact to land-based operator but taxes on gaming and employees salaries will be difficult to collect Similar regulation for casino and gaming arcades Gaming equipment certification Only operators / investments with transparent and proven track record Employees certification, with no past criminal record Clear anti-money laundering regulation 4
Responsible gaming Player registration Age limit Drunk / disorderly persons should be denied access to gaming facilities Problem gambling info kiosks with information / material Problem gambling hotline Centralized self-exclusion program Employees training about risks of problem gambling Player tracking system to monitor visits and playing activities 5
Gaming equipment limitations Current proposed limits will not serve as player protection purpose According to Options for Regulating Gaming in Ireland (2010 5.1; 5.2.1), money which would have been spent in casino, will not be spent in non-gaming activities Players move to online or less safe environment Proposed limits allow very limited investment, resulting in low quality gambling only oriented casino environment and service accordingly Regular European practice is 5-7 gaming machines per each gaming table With max 15-20 gaming tables it enables 105-140 slot machines per casino 6
Bar as integral part of entertainment Modern casinos are entertainment complexes with different type of entertainment, e.g. concerts, exhibitions and shows, places to meet and relax Proposal to prohibit alcohol on the casino floor is at odds with international industry standards 2003 UK lifted ban on alcohol on the casino gaming floor, no player protection issues raised as result Future clarity is needed 7
Thank You for attention For future questions please contact: Madis Jääger, CEO Olympic Entertainment Group AS Pronksi 19, Tallinn 10124, Estonia Tel +372 667 1250 Fax +372 667 1270 madis.jaager@oc.eu info@oc.eu www.olympic-casino.eu 8
Additional corporate information 9
OEG Vision and Mission Vision To be a global casino and resort operator with a passion for service excellence Mission To give our guests a customer orientated, secure and safe environment with the finest design and craftsmanship, unparalleled in the industry and supported by the excellence of our name and reputation. 10
Olympic in Snapshot First casino opened in Estonia in 1993 83 land-based casinos in 7 countries Online casino services since 2010 # 1 operator in Baltic countries 3,052 slot machines, 188 gaming tables Shares listed in Tallinn and Warsaw Stock Exchanges Winner of Best Land-based Casino Operator award for 2013 by Totally Gaming Awards Total Revenues (m ) Gaming Revenue Mix by Segments Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Belarus Italy EBITDA (m ) 21% 11% 2% 6% H1 2013 62.7 m 15% 23% 23% 160 140 120 100 80 60 112.8 126.4 135.9 64.1 67.4 50 40 30 20 21.1 32.0 38.7 17.3 16.7 40 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 H1 2012 H1 2013 0 2010 2011 2012 H1 2012 H1 2013 11
Company History Opening of flagship Reval Park Hotel & Casino 1 st casino in Latvia Listing on Tallinn Stock Exchange 1 st casino in Belarus 1 st casino in Slovakia Exiting Romanian market Entering online gaming market 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 OEG founded 1 st casino in Lithuania 1 st casino in Ukraine Exiting Ukranian market Entering Italian market 1 st casino in Poland and Romania Listing in Warsaw Stock Exchange 12
Key personnel Armin Karu, Chairman of the Board Founded company 1993 First casino established in Tallinn Olympic Yachting Centre Owns directly (and by controlled companies) 46% of the shares Madis Jääger, CEO Joined OEG in 2010 as CFO Previous work experience as an audit engagement leader in PricewaterhouseCoopers (joined PwC in 2001) Meelis Pielberg, COO Joined OEG in 1996 Country Manager in Estonia 2009-2011 Aigar Hain, Country Manager in Estonia Gints Pakarklis, Country Manager in Latvia Saulius Petravičius, Country Manager in Lithuania and Belarus Cezary Gizka, Country Manager in Poland Jozef Skuben, Country Manager in Slovakia Kaido Ulejev, Head of OlyBet 13
Key Markets Estonia 18 casinos, 741 slot machines, 18 gaming tables Market share 54% Largest competitors - Pafer 14%, Grand Prix 11% and City Casino 7% Latvia 38 casinos, 1,018 slot machines, 18 gaming tables Market share 22% Largest competitors - Alfor and Admiralu Clubs together (Fenikss) 44% and Joker 14% Lithuania 12 casinos, 420 slot machines, 651 gaming tables Market share 72% Largest competitors - Nese Pramogu Bankas 16% and VSGA (Tornado) 12% Poland 3 casinos, 266 slot machines, 38 gaming tables Market share 12% Largest competitors - ZPR and Orbis together ca 25%, Casinos Poland 16% Slovakia 5 casinos, 263 slot machines, 52 gaming tables Market share 76% Largest competitor - Casinos Slovakia 18% Belarus 5 casinos, 232 slot machines Market share in Minsk 9% Largest competitor Maxbet ca 29% Italy 2 casinos, 112 slot machines 14
Responsible gaming company Olympic is socially responsible company in all areas of business and gaming: We pursue sustainable business fair, transparent and progressive We act with social awareness we are proud of our high ethical standards We ensure that we continuously develop our industry-specific knowledge We are committed to legal and responsible advertising We pro-actively enforce effective anti-money laundering measures We provide safe, licensed and responsible gaming services We provide secure, professionally monitored gaming environment We rigorously respect customer confidentiality and privacy Girts Ludeks, Director of Latvian Games Business Association, I consider it very significant that along with business Olympic Casino Latvia also gets involved in different philanthropy projects, thereby supporting those who need help and indirectly raising the reputation of gaming organizers. Socially responsible and successfully managed companies help to improve and develop the industry as whole. 15
Responsible gaming within the group in cooperation with GamCare Gaming should remain a source of pleasure. GamCare an organization that has been a great influence in assisting us to develop our own strategies on a responsible approach to gaming including the following: Visitors minimum age and registration Voluntary casino access restrictions Special staff trainings on problem gambling Problem gaming aid brochures, contacts of help Online self testing options Prohibition on gaming on credit Strong restrictions on gaming advertising and direct mail Collaboration with problem gamblers groups. R. Kvietkovskis, Chairman of Lithuanian Gaming commission, Olympic casino Group Baltija is known as one of the most honest company complying with the agreement of voluntary self-restriction from playing program. 16
Initiator of regulated gaming OEG has actively been involved in creating existing casino gaming regulations as well as those relating to online operations, to achieve: well regulated gaming markets and the highest operating standards to protect players and to enable thorough supervision by regulatory bodies Such activities include: Restriction on location Establishing the minimum number of slots or tables per casino Achieving an average pay out of all slot machine bets no lower than 80% Promoting the registration of all casino guests Ensuring that all slot games are accurately certified Maintaining detailed registers of all Barred Players Implementing special requirements for online gaming Developing Electronic Gaming Reporting System. Erkki Raasuke, CFO of Swedbank Group Sweden, Olympic casino is clearly one of the success stories of Estonian business. The company that was started in the confusing and unpredictable 1990s has now developed into a professional and successful business group that has expanded far beyond Estonian borders. The name, executives and achievements of Olympic Casino have always been there for the public to assess. It has been the right decision and created the image of an open and proactive corporation. The company s aggressive expansion lays upon this strong foundation. 17
Giving back to the community Examples of charity programs, but not limited to: Charity fund-rising and sponsorship events Children's hospital support Warsaw National Museum support Contributor to Lithuanian children's hospitals via Adamkiene Foundation Charity programs sponsored Olympic employees, but not limited to: Maarjaküla children s hospitality program in Estonia, supported for many years Examples of sponsorship programs, but not limited to: Major sponsor of the Estonian and Polish Olympic Committees Promoter of international boxing tournaments Helping the restoring Latvia's historic Cesvaine Castle Supporting the Estonian Music Academy Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility, but not limited to: Olympic Casino Poland honoured with prestigious award Social Face of Business by Polish Business Club in 2011 Olympic Casino Latvia has been honoured with prestigious bronze award in the Sustainability Index in 2010 Elita Keisha, Chairman of charity Martin s Foundation, We are pleased to have Olympic Casino Latvia as our supporter for several years. Our foundation is helping children to overcome serious health problems. Thanks to generous donations of Olympic Casino we have been able to help more Latvian children and give them a hope for a brighter future. 18
We invest into our employees The Best Land-based Casino Operator of the Year, 2013 by Totally Gaming Awards in 2013 Finalist of The Best Land-based Casino of the Year, 2013 Olympic Casino Eurovea, Bratislava, Slovakia, by Totally Gaming Awards in 2013 The Marketing Deal of the Year ECA, 2013 Promotion of the international show-bartender competition Flairmania The Best Dealer - European Dealer Championchip, 2011 LIISA RENNSTEIN - Dealer, Reval Park Hotel & Casino, Estonia The Best Bartender - World Championchip, 2007 KRISTA MERI - Bartender, Reval Park Hotel & Casino, Estonia 19
Dynamic and developing operator Olympic Casino is a full member of European Casino Association Olympic as industry leader The team of OEG is one of leaders, and they have turned the company into leader a leader in innovation, a leader in corporate social responsibility and a leader in driving the entire global gaming industry forward. Frank Fahrenkopf President and CEO of the American Gaming Association State of art layout and interior design Olympic Casino interiors are winning interiors. They are both beautiful and emotional. Their sensuous and delight-promoting designs enable a strong experience and pleasure for their customers. They are, at the same time, contemporary and classical. David Kranes US casino interior design expert Olympic as innovations leader You were the first operator to bring EZ Pay cashless solution to Europe. You were the first operator in the world to sign up for the IGT Cloud, bringing the benefits of server-based gaming to venues of any size. Patty Hart President and CEO, IGT 20
H1 2013 Gaming Revenues up 5.7% y-o-y Gaming Revenue Bridge by Segments ( 000 ) 64 000 62 000 60 000 58 000 56 000 40 30 20 10 0 59,251 Gaming revenues H1 2012 +639 +565 Quarterly Sales Revenue (m ) +691 +207-137 -287 +1,721 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2010 2011 2012 2013 62,650 Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Belarus Italy Gaming revenues H1 2013 Estonia and Latvia accounted both 23% of total gaming revenues as at end H1 2013 Active operations in Italy since November 2012 Belarusian market suffering from new regulation, which requires customer identification Existing casino chain with 17 locations acquired in Latvia on 28 June 2013 Total Revenue Mix by Segments Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Belarus Italy 20% 12% 2% 3% 15% H1 2013 67.1 m 24% 24% 21
H1 2013 Operating Profit up 6.4% y-o-y Operating Profit Bridge by Segments ( 000 ) 14 000 13 500 13 000 12 500 12 000 11 500 11 000 10 500 10 000 Quarterly Operating Profit (m ) 10 8 6 4 2 0-2 11,721 EBIT H1 2012 +519 +282-119 +1,079-606 -451 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 +49 2010 2011 2012 2013 12,473 Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Belarus Italy EBIT H1 2013 Profitability impacted largely on taxation regulations in each country Additionally, profitability of Lithuania and Slovakia impacted by opening of new casinos While Latvia accounted for 48% of Group s operating profit the y-o-y growth was highest in Poland. Operating Profit Mix by Segments Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Belarus Italy 10% 16% 3% H1 2013 12.5 m 48% 23% 22
H1 2013 EBITDA down 3.3% y-o-y EBITDA Bridge by Segments ( 000 ) 18 000 17 500 17 000 16 500 17,251-141 +235-184 +410-577 -539 +218 16,674 Profitability impacted largely on taxation regulations in each country as well as lower depreciation Additionally, profitability of Lithuania and Slovakia impacted by opening of new casinos 16 000 15 500 15 000 Quarterly Operating Profit (m ) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 EBITDA H1 2012 Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Belarus Italy EBITDA H1 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2010 2011 2012 2013 Operating Profit Mix by Segments Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Belarus Italy 16% 12% 6% 1% H1 2013 16.7 m 43% 22% 23
Estonia Estonian gaming market: Market volume: 52 million 9 casino operators Olympic Casino in Estonia: Established market leader Market share 54% 18 casinos, including the country s largest casino Reval Park Hotel & Casino 18 gaming tables, 741 slot machines 531 employees «Reval Park Hotel & Casino, Tallinn» Main Competitors: Pafer 14% Grand Prix 11% City Casino 7% 24
Latvia Latvian gaming market: Market volume: 150 million 16 casino operators Olympic Casino in Latvia: The second largest casino operator Market share 22% 38 casinos, including the country s largest casino Olympic Voodoo Casino 18 gaming tables, 1,018 slot machines 652 employees «Olympic Voodoo Casino, Riga» Main Competitors: Alfor and Admiralu Clubs together (Fenikss) 44% Joker 14% 25
Lithuania Lithuanian gaming market: Market volume: 18 million 4 casino operators Olympic Casino in Lithuania: Established market leader Market share 72% 12 casinos, including the country s largest casino Olympic Casino in Radisson Blu 65 gaming tables, 420 slot machines 626 employees «Olympic Casino in Radisson Blu, Vilnius» Main Competitors: Nese Pramogu Bankas 16% VSGA (Tornado) 12% 26
Poland Polish gaming market: Market volume: 214 million 3 casino operators Olympic Casino in Poland: The second largest casino operator Market share 12% 3 casinos, including the country s largest casino Olympic Casino Sunrise 38 gaming tables, 266 slot machines 352 employees «Olympic Casino Sunrise, Warsaw» Main Competitors: ZPR and Orbis together ~ 25% (estimation) Casinos Poland 16% 27
Slovakia Slovak gaming market: Market volume: 17 million 3 casino operators Olympic Casino in Slovakia: Established market leader Market share 76% 5 casinos, including the country s largest casino Olympic Casino in Carlton hotel 52 gaming tables, 263 slot machines 264 employees «Olympic Casino in Carlton, Bratislava» Main Competitor: Casinos Slovakia 18% 28
Belarus Belarusian gaming market: Market volume: 38 million (estimation in Minsk) 18 casino operators Olympic Casino in Belarus: Market share 9% 5 casinos 232 slot machines 80 employees Main Competitors: Maxbet ~ 29% (Minsk, estimation) 29
Italy Italian VLT market: Market volume: 5.0 billion 10 concessions, 56,500 VLT licenses Olympic Casino in Italy: 2 VLT gaming halls 638 m 2 112 slot machines 20 employees Opening new VLT gaming halls: 4 VLT gaming halls 320 slot machines 80 employees 30
Upgraded Online Casino Services January 2010 July 2013 1 August 2013 Olympic Casino Eesti AS, OEG subsidiary, received the first Estonian online gaming license Olympic Casino Latvia SIA, OEG subsidiary, received the second Latvian online gaming license Launching online casino games, poker and sports betting under the new brand OlyBet. 31
New Casino Hotel Project in Estonia Hilton Tallinn Park 202-room upscale hotel to be operated by Hilton Total cost of ca 36 million euros Opening planned to December 2015 Casino at 1,600 m 2 will be holding separate areas for slot machines, gaming tables and club poker, special area for VIP players, spacious casino bar with stage area and comfortable lounge. Hotel includes: 202 rooms 26 suites Restaurant seating 122 SPA with pool, fitness centre and saunas Conference rooms seating 720 32
Thank you! 33
LICENCED GAMING ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND Presentation on the Heads of the Gambling Control Bill 2013 to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. 4 October 2013 Carraig Court, Georges Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin T: 01 288 5001 E: licencedgaming@gmail.com Present Barry Galvin of Barry C Galvin & Son, Advisor to the Association Brian Freney, Chairman of LGAI and operator of Star Leisure, Bray CHAIRMAN and members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to appear before you today to give you a brief overview of the Licenced Gaming Association of Ireland s observations and proposals on the Heads of the Gambling Bill 2013. Introduction The members of the Licenced Gaming Association of Ireland are all holders of current Gaming Licences and Court Certificates, and all operate in areas where Part 3 of the Gaming & Lotteries Act 1956 have been adopted. Barry C Galvin and Son has represented clients in the sector for many years and was recently involved in substantial cases where the Gaming & Lotteries Act 1956 was in issue. There are 57 licenced premises (2012) throughout the country that are mainly located in holiday/leisure and seaside locations. In most cases the businesses have been family-run for several generations and are a part of the commercial fabric of these locations. Practically all of these businesses comprise the same traditional model of two segregated business offerings. One is a family amusement area which is open to children and adults alike, while the other is a Gaming Area which is restricted to strictly over 18 s. The family amusement area machines can be split into two main categories. First there are the amusement machines, ie video shooting games, car simulator and video games, pool, air hockey, table soccer, pinball, kiddies rides, dance machines etc; secondly there are the amusement with prize machines ie, prize cranes, skill prize games, quiz prize games, redemption machines etc. Within the Gaming Area the machines would be a combination of both traditional and electronic slot machines and automatic table games etc. To maintain a gaming licence the operators must provide, on an annual basis, the following to the Court and the Revenue Commisioners: Confirm correct zoning and planning for the operation of a Gaming Arcade; Adhere to the opening and closing hours determined by the Court; Confirm that an annual inspection by the fire officer has been carried out to confirm compliance of the building; Provide a complete listing to the Court of the number and type of machines available for play; Confirm tax clearance certification; Pay the sum of 505 per machine per annum, plus a premises licence of 630; Provide amusement facilities in addition to gaming; Provide for confirmation by An Gardai Siochana that the licence has been operated in the previous 12 months in a correct manner; Provide satisfaction to the general public that the licence has been operated in the correct manner in the previous 12 months, and place ads in the newspaper advertising the notice of renewal of the licence. (continued over) Registered in Ireland No: 527414 Directors: B. Freney B. McCormick
Rather than restate all our observations outlined in our submission, I will restate our main recommendations under the following headings: Security of Tenure The Draft Bill does not take into consideration the past and present participation and investment of the licensed proprietors of gaming/amusement arcades. The Bill opens up a number of uncertain possibilities, in many cases without the possibility of participation or objective challenge. Some parts of the legislation might well be a disproportionate interference with the right to work/private property. We propose that there should be recognition of the existing licenced proprietors and their investment in the business. We submit that appropriate arrangements should be provided to ensure a smooth transition to the proposed new licencing regime. With regard to the number of existing gaming/amusement businesses throughout the country which have been licenced for many years and which are the source of income and employment of a large number of persons we maintain that constitutional and EU protected proprietary rights have been established, and that these cannot be taken away, except in circumstances that are proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved and on payment of the appropriate compensation. Proposed segregation of amusement and gaming areas Head 17 In the past decades it has been a legal requirement for the granting of a Gaming Licence that amusement machines be operated in the same premises as gaming. These have been, and still are, traditionally separated from each other as age restriction is relevant in the gaming area. For the reasons set out in Section 5 of our submission, it is proposed that existing and future Gaming Licence holders would be obliged to operate a supervised access-controlled doorway to separate amusement and gaming areas, and any new arrangements be implemented for future premises as part of the planning process. Opening hours Head 17 We submit that the proposed times are too restrictive and suggest that current general operating times for a 2A licence 10am opening and closing time of 2am should continue for existing licence holders. These times are already licenced by the Court, are adhered to by the licenced operators, and are the business model to which they have scaled their businesses over recent decades. It is also important to note that the critical time-frame of 11pm to 2am, especially on weekend nights, is pivotal to the commercial viability of the industry. Additionally, the fact that the main commercial competition comes from the same machines which can be played online 24 hours a day should be taken into consideration. We also propose that the closing time for a 2B licence should be 10.30pm all year round, with the additional facility to grant a seasonal extension to allow for festivals and other activities associated with holiday/leisure and seaside locations. Definition of an Amusement Machine The definitions at (ii) and (iii) of an amusement machine are contradictory and do not adequately reflect what exists at present. An amusement machine that is intended exclusively for amusement purposes should be defined as a different category and distinct from an amusement with prize machine on which one can obtain a benefit. We propose that the two definitions namely amusement machines and amusement with prize machine be included in the new legislation We also propose that the amusement hall/amusement arcade definition should read fixed facility providing amusement and amusement with prize machines, open to adults and young persons Prohibit the use of Gaming Machines in Bookmakers We submit that gaming machines should be totally prohibited in bookmakers. We agree with The Report of the Casino Committee which states: the Committee recommends that gaming and betting be treated as two completely separate types of gambling activity, which raise very distinct regulatory issues and which should be treated separately in any regulatory arrangement. The Committee considers that this is fundamental for the regulation of gaming. The Committee recommends that there should be no betting of any kind permitted on or in any licenced gaming premises. Likewise there should be no gaming activity of any kind permitted on or in any betting or bookmakers premises Head 73: Promotions and Gambling LGAI is totally opposed to the promotion of any gambling event, or service, by way of direct communication to individuals, and believes the prevention of such activity is for the protection of vulnerable persons from risks to their well-being arising from gambling. (continued over)
Establishment of Fund LGAI very much welcomes the establishment of the fund in Head 77 and acknowledges the purposes of the fund. We would very much appreciate the consideration of the national gambling addiction centre Tiglin when considering the allocation of funding. The LGAI is currently working closely with Tiglin and believes the countrywide services it provides are the best available. We also welcome the self-exclusion register as detailed in Head 71. Establishment of an Interim Gaming Regulation Authority it is blatantly obvious as set out in Section 2 of our submission (Factual Information) that the current situation is one of large numbers of unlicenced machines being operated nationwide. Apart from adversely impacting on the existing 57 Licenced Gaming Operators, it also endangers the public at large. Gaming machines are known to be operated in casino s, private members clubs, gaming arcades, amusement arcades, bingo halls, take-aways, public houses, sports and social clubs, taxi rank offices and other similar venues. This situation needs to be resolved immediately. To this end LGAI totally supports the idea (until the new Act is in force) of the establishment of an interim authority. This would be specifically to: Prevent unlicenced operators currently operating 24-hour gaming so as to protect the vulnerable from risks to their well being arising from gambling; Protect the jobs of the people working in licenced gaming/ amusement arcades; To stop substantial revenue being lost to the state; To prevent unlicenced slot machines being operated in unlicenced premises. The Draft Bill contains many fundamental changes and sometimes vague and complicated concepts. The LGAI submits that it should be simple to adopt the submissions contained herein so as to facilitate an early overhaul of the sector in a structured fashion. This could be done by adopting best practice as already being delivered by licenced operators throughout Ireland; clarifying and simplifying the law; preserving existing properly-licenced businesses; and addressing illegal operations by permitting them to be licenced where appropriate, or closing them down where thought necessary We would like to thank the Chairman, and the Committee, and welcome any questions. (continued over)
Townspark, Cahir, Co Tipperary 052 744 1166 infocahir@aiseiri.ie www.aiseiri.ie 4/10/13 Alan Guidon Clerk to the committee, Gambling Control Section Department of Justice. Opening Statement to Joint Committee on Justice Defence & Equality Re: Gambling Bill by Paul J Mullins of the Aiseiri Group. The Aiseiri group established in Cahir County Tipperary in 1983, has Primary Addiction Treatment Centres in Counties Tipperary, Wexford & Kilkenny, and a Half-Way house in Waterford. We are pleased to be invited to place our views and experience in working with problem and pathological gamblers to this committee. Aiseiri has two adult treatment centres in Wexford and Tipperary, and an Adolescent centre in Ballyragget Co Kilkenny. The adult centres take 12 residents for a 4 weeks residential treatment programme, and the adolescent centre works with 15/21 year olds male and female for a six weeks residential treatment programme. Since its foundation Aiseiri has been working with problem gamblers using the 12 step recovery programme. This programme has proved successful for hundreds of thousands of people suffering from alcohol, drugs, and gambling addictions. The most important thing about the 12 step programme lies in the fact that it works. However due to the changing and challenging nature of problem gambling including internet and gambling on social media sites we have developed individual treatment plans based on the gambling clients pathway model. We follow best practise in the area and therefore offer value for money in terms of a better treatment episode for all those presenting with a gambling problem. We assess using the South Oaks Gambling Screen and the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) 5 of the American Psychiatric Association. We are happy that the gambling bill includes treatment, education, and research. Aiseiri will conduct research on past and current residents over a two year period 2012/13 and present same to the dept in early 2014 which we hope will assist in the final legislation. We would recommend that education on the dangers of gambling/betting be introduced to all secondary and tertiary education in Ireland. That a prevalence study be carried out to determine numbers and those in danger of moving from social gambling to problem gambling. Over the past few years, and certainly since the financial crisis in Ireland, we have witnessed an increase in those presenting with a gambling problem. The financial implications for a pathological gambler and his family are for the main part long term
placing a huge burden on both those suffering from this insidious addiction and their families. We would like to work with all concerned including the gaming and betting industry, in helping the problem gambler. We need to work together and the provision of a statutory framework and a fund as is the case in the UK is to be welcomed. For far too long gambling has been seen as the poor relation of the other main addictions currently affecting Irish society, i.e. Alcohol/Drugs. It destroys as many if not more lives; research suggests that there is a higher rate of suicide among problem gamblers than in the other addictions mentioned. Gambling has been called the hidden addiction and those of us working at Aiseiri have witnessed first-hand the devastation wrought by gambling. We agree with the compulsory training of staff in terms of recognising incidences of potential problem gambling with their customers. This alone may help in the reduction of pathological gamblers as we recognise that a small cohort of the gaming/betting industry s customers, contribute a disproportionate amount of their profits. We have gained invaluable experience in working with problem and pathological gamblers across our adult and adolescent centres and have previously conducted research among adolescent gamblers in residential treatment. ( Paul J Mullins 2008/9) Paul has also completed a short research study with members of Gamblers Anonymous both studies available at Acadamia.org, and sent to the Minister for Justice Dept. We hope to be able to offer a day programme for problem gamblers in 2014 as not all can avail of a four week long residential treatment episode, and costs remain a hindering factor for those seeking help. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the invite and wish them the very best in their endeavours to complete the gambling bill. Paul Conlon. CEO Aiseiri Group. Paul J Mullins. MACI MEASG MICPT Addiction Counsellor, Researcher, Lecturer.
Oireachtas Committee e on Justice, Defence and a Equality Rehab Group Presentation on the Gambling Control Bill 2013, General Scheme Good afternoon, Deputies, Senators, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for inviting i us to address you here today. We welcome this opportunity to emphasise some of our keyy concerns in relation to t the General Scheme of the Gambling Control Bill 2013. The Rehab Group operates Ireland s largest charitable lottery and we are particularly alarmed about proposals included in the Scheme in relation to such lotteries. We believe that the implementation of current proposals would result in the complete elimination of charities from the lottery marketplace, because of the preferential and discriminatoryy position afforded to the National Lottery. This will increasee dependence on Exchequer funding and increase charities reliance on other types of fundraising, which have also been seriously impacted by the recession. Over the past threee decades, the impact of the National Lottery on Rehab ss lottery activities has been catastrophic, due to the t unfair legislative regime currently in place. In 1987, Rehab held a strong 25% share of the lottery market. In 1989, following two yearss of operation by the National Lottery, our market share had dropped to just 5%. Today our market share is just 1%. In 1996, following many years of negotiations with the charitable lottery sector, the Government introduced the Charitable Lottery Compensation Fund. F This recognised the t inability of charitable lotteriess to competee with the National Lottery as a result of the severe s restrictions created by the cap on prize funds provided for underr the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. No restrictions apply to the prize funds of the National Lottery. 1
In 2012, the Government took the shocking decision, without consultation, to phase out the Charitable Lotteries Compensation Fund. In this context, a complete removal of the cap on prize funds would be the only correct and legal approach. However, the General Scheme continues to place an absurdly low cap on the prizes which can be distributed by charitable lotteries. It limits the monthly prize fund to 400,000 while the National Lottery can offer unlimited prizes and has offered weekly prize funds of up to 190 million, through the Euromillions lottery. The limit of 1,750 on scratch cards will have a particularly catastrophic impact on charitable lotteries as it reduces the current prize fund limit by 82.5% and will render them entirely unattractive to consumers and, therefore, uncompetitive in the lottery market place. In the absence of a fair and reasonable charitable lottery compensation fund, we urge the Committee to recommend that the cap on prize funds be removed entirely, to ensure fair competition and to prevent abuse of dominance in the marketplace by the National Lottery. This is an issue which, we believe, must be rectified before the sale of the National Lottery is completed. The Scheme further exacerbates issues in relation to competition in the market place by failing to recognise the size of lotteries in its requirements for a minimum charitable contribution. We propose that the proceeds of a lottery be defined in terms of net gaming revenue the money that the charity actually receives after the payment of prizes. This is the approach which has been adopted for the National Lottery. A rising scale of charitable contribution would ensure that the bigger the lottery, the greater the percentage paid to good causes. Overall, we have grave concerns about the structures which will underpin the regulation of gambling and lottery activities in Ireland. Instead of the establishment of an office, located within the Minister s Department, to oversee a small number of gambling and lottery activities, we propose the establishment of a specific regulatory authority, with an independent board, which is fully transparent and beyond political influence, charged with overseeing the operation of all gambling and lottery activities in Ireland. 2
Unfortunately, it is the case that, in the absence of a fair and reasonable charitable lottery compensation fund and, in light of the current proposals to continue to cap prize funds for charitable lotteries, the future of charitable lotteries is very bleak. It is likely that many of the legislative proposals provided for in Head 19 will quickly become obsolete, as this anticompetitive legislation fully eliminates the ability of the charitable lotteries to compete in the market place and, therefore, their ability to operate at all. We would like to thank the Committee for its attention and would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. 3
BET BEWARE LIMITED GAMBLING CONTROL BILL 2013 PRESENTATION NARRATIVE FOR JOINT ALL PARTY COMMITTEE MEETING DAIL EIREANN WEDNESDAY 9 TH OCTOBER 2013
INTRODUCTION: Bet Beware Limited is a not for profit organization that was established by a group of concerned individuals with backgrounds in the betting and gambling businesses. It has the objective of focusing on the very real issues of a social and economic nature associated with all forms of betting/gambling activity that impact on individuals and society in general. Whilst the organization neither condones nor condemns betting/gambling it holds the opinion that betting/gambling, contrary to industry spin, is not in the main entertainment or fun. In the vast majority of cases individuals participate in betting/gambling with the real or imagined expectation that they will win. Most lose and many experience anxiety and varying degrees of depression as a consequence of the losses. This presentation to day coupled with our response document is an attempt to present our views to the persons responsible for the drafting of the legislation for eventual presentation to The Oireachtas. In the main the response focuses on the off course betting industry, an industry where certain members of our group have extensive business experience. It is however the intention of Bet Beware to engage with OGCI when it is established in an effort to influence various aspects of the actual regulatory framework. However to use a phrase borrowed from Head 33/Page 43 of the General Scheme document there is a serious disparity in the matter of Equality Of Arms for organizations such as ours in engaging with government on this issue by comparison with the vast resources that the off course betting industry have up to now committed and will continue to commit into the future in its efforts to ensure that legislation is structured that favours the profit and greed driven objectives of most, but not all, of its members to the detriment of not only the poor and vulnerable members of society but of society in general. The Off Course Betting Industry would like to think of itself as well regulated. However one of its most senior former executives and founder of a major bookmaker enterprise has stated that over the years it has been able to drive a coach and four through the Betting Act 1931 helped in no small measure by the inability of An Garda Siochana to monitor and enforce the 1931 Act. So much for a sense of Social Responsibility!. Bet Beware believes that unless the legislation is rigid in structure and the OGCI monitors the industry in a comprehensive and detailed manner then a coach and four will be driven through this new legislation also by the off course betting industry. HEAD 1 DEFINITIONS & INTERPRETATIONS: 1. The definition of a Bet should be defined in more precise detail for the protection of users of betting services and in particular in the interests of fairness and transparency. The definition could be a bet is a wager made on an event to be decided in the future. It is important that decided in the future should be part of the definition. It is universally accepted that a bet is a wager made on an event that is decided in the future rather than commenced or started in the future. 2. The definition of Betting should exclude any reference to Virtual Events. Serious doubts exist about the integrity and fairness of Virtual Events. There are reasons to believe that the result is known before the event takes place i.e. concluded or finished. There have been instances in the past
year alone where results cards have appeared on television screens in betting shops declaring the result before the advertised start time of the actual event. Bet Beware believes that there should be a prohibition on Virtual Events in the new legislation and that this prohibition should not be considered for repeal until such time as the OGCI have undertaken a detailed investigation into all aspects of Virtual Events. 3. The definition of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals needs to be particularly looked at so as to eliminate all possible loopholes. The stakes in terms of profit are so high for the bookmakers and the consequences for communities, families and individuals potentially so disastrous that it is imperative that government ensure that the definition is rigid and not open to interpretation by the array of lawyers that the major bookmakers have lined up to take on the government on this issue alone. With a population of something like 800 shops owned by the 7 major operators the potential profit [not turnover] from FOBT s using UK figures as a guideline is a mind boggling 150 million per annum. That is money that they intend to take out of the pockets of the poor, vulnerable, depressed, or simply foolish individuals at a time when the various welfare agencies both state run and charitable are unable to satisfy the demands being put upon them for help. Perhaps a current government Minister, Mr. Pat Rabbitte, described these devices and all their guises accurately when he addressed an industry forum entitled Irish Casino Review A Regulatory Update organized by A.L. Goodbody in October 2008. To the consternation of the assembled, with a small number of exceptions, he described FOBT S as THE CRACK COCAINE OF GAMBLING. 5. The definition of Licensed Bookmakers should contain a form of words that incorporates the suggested additional words that should be used in the definition of a Bet. A suggested definition is as follows: A Licensed Bookmaker shall be a person and/or company who is the holder of a Bookmakers License issued under this Act to engage in betting on events to be decided in the future. HEAD 2 COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITION, SHORT TITLE: 1. Paragraph 2 [vi] states that having a betting or gaming licence...does not confer any expectation, entitlement or presumption as to the granting of licence under this Act in relation to the same or similar service. It should be made clear that same or similar service includes the same and/or similar betting products provided by the bookmaker in the past and the fact that particular products were provided in the past does not mean that there can be an automatic presumption by the bookmaker that they can be or will be entitled to provide them as soon as the new Act becomes law. This is particularly important because it is the opinion of Bet Beware that television screen Roulette, a gaming product that is not permitted in betting shops under section 19[3] Betting Act 1931 and chapter 5 of Gaming & Lotteries Act 1956, was introduced by predominantly I.B.A. members and Paddy Power in the past two years in an effort to establish a FOBT type product in advance of the new Act coming into being and to then make the case to government that it is an over the counter business established for a number of years. Incidentally this television screen Roulette was introduced in late 2010 despite the fact that in the government Regulating Gaming In Ireland report published in 2006 it specifically stated in chapter 4.6.6. of page 82 that gaming and betting be treated as two separate activities and that no gaming activity of any type be permitted in betting shops and in chapter 4.6.2. of the same page that Roulette was
categorised as a gaming activity. In total disregard for what was stated in 4.6.6. and 4.6.2. television screen Roulette was introduced in late 2010. HEAD 4 PRIMARY PURPOSES: 1. Paragraph [i] refers to fairness in the conduct of gambling. A key feature of this concept is that if you cannot win then you cannot lose. In this respect Bet Beware is aware from its research that there are increasing instances of gamblers not being paid winnings when they present a docket for payment on the basis that the bet was placed after the off time of the event. This is particularly the case in respect of Virtual Events. However the gambler only discovers this when presenting a docket for winnings. The legislation needs to include a clause compelling bookmaker shops to display a late bets register so that gamblers can access this register. Furthermore, it should be stipulated that after a specified period of time all unclaimed stakes derived from late bets must be remitted by the bookmaker to the Social Responsibility Fund and that such remittances be in addition to the agreed payments to the fund. HEAD 6 MINISTER TO DESIGNATE OFFICERS AND CERTAIN FUNCTIONS: 1. Bet Beware believes that It is absolutely imperative from the perspective of the operations of the OGCI in the best interests of government and the general public that no representations are considered from any past or current employees of bookmakers or their trade associations for any position whatsoever at OGCI. HEAD 17 SPECIFIC MATTERS AFFECTING PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES AND LICENCES: 1. Paragraph 3[v] states that no cash transactions may take place for the remote betting. It needs to be made perfectly clear that no cash transactions also means that the sale of credits and/or vouchers over the counter to gamblers to enable them to participate in remote betting whilst present in a shop is also prohibited. 2. Paragraph 8 [ii] also states that there shall be no cash transaction permitted for remote gaming. Again it needs to be made perfectly clear that cash transactions are not permitted for any gaming activity that might be made available in shop from a remote device/location and transmitted into the shop and displayed by the means of a television monitor. 3. Paragraph 16 states that all transactions for remote gambling must be by electronic cash transfer. Once more there will be a need to make perfectly clear that electronic cash transfer means from the gamblers bank account to the bookmakers bank account and not to mean that the gambler can transfer cash over to the bookmaker at the counter using a bookmakers deposit account cards that have become the subject of sustained advertising by some bookmakers in recent times. HEAD 18 MATTERS SPECIFIC TO CASINOS AND CASINO GAMES: 1. Paragraph 4[1] of Part B states that casino games may be played on a table in premises that have been specified in category 2R licence and in no other place or premises. It is an accepted fact
throughout the gambling community worldwide that Roulette is a casino game. Accordingly Bet Beware believes that Roulette whether live or virtual should not be permitted under the new legislation and that it should be made clear in the legislation that Roulette in all its guises will be regarded as a prohibited activity in betting shops. 2. Paragraph 8[v] of Part D states intoxicating liquor shall not be brought into or consumed in the area reserved for casino gaming. Bet Beware believes that certain betting shop operators have over time deliberately located shops either in public house car parks or immediately adjacent to public houses and that this is not in the best interest of gamblers because of the potential for diminished judgement occasioned through the intoxicating effect of alcohol. There should be a clause in the new legislation prohibiting the location of a betting shop in a public house car park and/or within a specified distance of a public house. HEAD 29 PUBLIC NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPLY: 1. In addition to the requirements proposed under Paragraph 1 of this head there should be a requirement that a copy of the application must be affixed to an exterior door/wall of the premises accessible to the general public in similar manner to planning permission applications. In the case of applications for licences for multiple premises a copy of the notice of application should be affixed to each and every premises. HEAD 33 HEARINGS AND ORAL SUBMISSIONS: 1. Paragraph 4[i] makes reference to equality of arms and states that as far as possible the chair shall endeavour to ensure that it exists. Bet Beware believes that there is a very real need to ensure equality of arms right now at this pre legislation enactment stage so that organizations, such as it and also the various charitable organizations with real concerns for not only addicted gamblers and problem gamblers but also persons who simply lose too much money, can engage with government and contribute in a comprehensive and meaningful way to the drafting of the legislation. Because of the disparity of equality of arms as between the parties it has been the experience in the UK that the bookmakers have been able to dupe The Gambling Commission that the issue of FOBT addiction and/or harmfulness to society should be evidence based with the onus on organizations opposed to UK to provide the evidence. Bet Beware agrees with an evidence based approach and believes that the bookmakers should produce the evidence that FOBT s and/or FOBT related products in all their guises are not addictive or harmful. Bet Beware believes that in Ireland the government, particularly in these times of economic collapse, should be unrelenting and that in relation to all betting and gaming products that the onus be put on the bookmakers to provide evidence or alternatively a compelling written justification to show that the betting/gaming products are harmless rather than harmful. HEAD 43 FEES IN RESPECT OF LICENCES: 1. Paragraph 1[iii][a] suggests that there should be a fixed fee in respect of betting shops. Bet Beware believes that the fee should be variable and not fixed and should be based on a number of factors including but not limited to location, opening hours, terms/conditions of trading and turnover.
HEAD 46 SECURITIES: 1. Paragraph 1 deals with the requirement of OGCI that licence holders should lodge security funds, as determined by OGCI, in a bank in the state. Bet Beware believes that this is essential and that in the case of multiple shop owners the amount of security should reflect the number of shops owned. 2. Bet Beware also believes that the OGCI should look at the matter of deposit accounts that various bookmakers have been providing to gamblers for the past number of years. In particular Bet Beware believes that the Central Bank/Financial Services Authority should be consulted about these accounts to ensure that they comply with all existing regulations. Bet Beware also believes that these deposit type cards should be subjected to a special tax similar to credit card tax. HEAD 48 POWERS TO ATTACH CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 1. Paragraph 1[iii] refers to a presumption that all games/machines shall be presumed to be suitable and are proper to the licence for which they are sought. Bet Beware believes that it would be a mistake to presume anything. It would be far better in the interest of gamblers if bookmakers are licensed for a defined and specified menu of activities/games/machines and are required by OGCI to make an application to increase the size of that menu. HEAD 49 ORDERS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN MACHINES/GAMES: 1. Paragraph 7 deals with Fixed Odds Betting Terminals [FOBT S]. Bet Beware believes, as stated earlier, that it is important to legislate for the prohibition of all FOBT type activity even when transmitted into a shop on a television screen from a remote location. HEAD 58 RESERVED POWERS: 1. Paragraph 3 deals with the matter of Undisclosed Tests. Reading sub paragraphs [i] to [v] inclusive it would appear that a very cumbersome set of procedures are being suggested. In particular paragraph [iii] is of concern as is sub paragraph [v]. Surely the objective of compliance monitoring is to catch the offenders when they might least expect it and to prosecute them before the courts. HEAD 61 INFRINGEMENTS: 1. Paragraph 3[i][d] and 3[ii][a] both deal with the issue of licence suspension. Bet Beware suggests that for maximum effect the three day suspension should be on three consecutive Saturdays and the one week suspension should be at a peak trading time of the year such as Cheltenham or Galway Races weeks. HEAD 64 MANIPULATION: 1. Whilst Bet Beware believes that it is essential to protect bookmaker and punter from manipulation with intent to alter outcome, it does have concerns about the provision permitting refusal of a bet. Already there exists in the Irish market widespread refusal of bets for no other
reason than the gambler is known to be successful at gambling and there are genuine concerns that certain bookmakers will use this Head 48 as an excuse to refuse bets to an even greater extent than is the case already. It should be part of the legislation that when a bet is refused to a gambler that the bookmaker is obliged in law to issue the gambler with a Bet Refused docket setting out the reasons for the refusal. HEAD 67 PROMOTING CUSTOMER AWARENESS: 1. Bet Beware believes that the legislation must include details of the precise measures that bookmakers must take to promote customer awareness and not leave it in the control of the bookmakers to set the standard for the measures. 2. It should be a mandatory requirement that the reverse side of all betting dockets and/or coupons must have a BETTING COULD DAMAGE YOUR POCKET message printed in a format similar in concept to the health warning on cigarette packets. 3. It should be a mandatory requirement that all posters and signage whether displayed internally or externally should contain the same message as above and not as is presently the case a referral in small type size to a website such as Gamble Aware. The type size of the message on posters and signage should at the least be equivalent in size to the largest type size used promoting the product/service. 4. It should be mandatory that all television screens in a shop whether utilised for the display of pictures, odds or promotions should also display the same message. HEAD 68 CREDIT FACILITY NOT PERMITTED: 1. Credit facilities should not be permitted at all for betting/gaming purposes. Neither should payment for betting/gaming services in betting shops or remotely be permitted by credit card. HEAD 72 ADVERTISING: 1. This is a major issue. It is the intention of Bet Beware to engage with OGCI and the Advertising Standards Authority on this issue. However Bet Beware would like to state that an advertisement offering odds on which of two disabled person, one on a frame and the other on a walking stick making it across the road first is a most disgraceful way of promoting a brand and has no place in Irish society. HEAD 73 PROMOTIONS: 1. Ireland has seen a surge in the level of in shop bookmaker s promotions in recent years. This surge in promotional activity has focused on offers such as money back on losers and double the odds on selected races. All this at a time when the main practitioners of this activity have pleaded inability to pay overheads and/or made overtures to government to alter the taxation rules governing bookmaking to a more favourable set of rules [for them].
2. Prominent in this promotional activity is the concept of happy hours a concept long ago prohibited in the licensed vintner trade. The new legislation needs to specifically prohibit happy hours in all their guises. 3. It should be mandatory that the same BETTING COULD DAMAGE YOUR POCKET message as described in Head 67 should be included in all promotional material. HEAD 77 /HEAD 78/HEAD79/HEAD 80 SOCIAL FUND: 1. Bet Beware believes that it is essential that OGCI controls all aspects of the fund including but not limited to the collection of the funds from bookmakers and the disbursement of the funds to a diversity of organizations concerned with the welfare and/or education of families and individuals of challenged circumstances brought about as a consequence of their engagement with gambling. 2. No aspect of the Social Fund should have an input from bookmakers except the actual provision of the funds. In particular bookmakers should have no say in the disbursements of the Social Fund. 3. In order to kick start the fund the legislation must be put in place compelling betting shop bookmakers to hand over to the fund on its establishment all monies held by the bookmakers from uncollected bets whether they be uncollected stakes from late bets or uncollected stakes/returns from winning bets. Bet Beware suggests that similar rules are applied as are applied to dormant bank/post office accounts and that the procedure on remitting the money from uncollected bets continues into the future and must be regarded as separate from normal contributions as provided for in the legislation.. SCHEDULE 1 LICENCES THAT MAY BE ISSUED: 1. There should not be any Hybrid/Crossover Licences. They will be impossible to monitor and enforce. It would be far better to eliminate them altogether. In any event as far as betting shops are concerned the General Scheme indicates at Head 17 Paragraph 8[ii] and at Paragraph 16 that cash transactions cannot take place for remote gaming and as the only type of gaming the shop bookmakers propose to introduce is of the remote type it would appear that there is a significant conflict here. Bet Beware believes that the conflict is best resolved by legislating with concern for individuals, families and communities rather than for profit and greed. 2. In Part B/Part 1 the various licences available to land based bookmakers are outlined. Bet Beware takes issue with the proposal to have operational hours between 07.00 and 22.00. This replicates the UK model and that model was created by the majors over there to provide them with the opportunity of fostering FOBT related addiction. Opening hours at the current level serves the public well and in the absence of serious evidence based research on the part of the bookmakers then the hours should remain at current levels. If the legislators believe that the opening hours need to be extended as suggested then there should be a two tier licence scheme with those who want to trade at existing levels paying a level of fee that reflects that and those who want to trade the extended hours paying an increased fee. In respect of the latter situation the legislators should note that there is an established precedence in the matter of additional fees payable for the benefit of being permitted to trade extended hours under licence. That precedence exists in the licensed vintner trade whereby publicans who wish to trade extended hours during summer months
for an additional 16 hours over 7 days and for an additional 21.5 hours over 7 days in winter months pay an extended hours fee of 440 [Four Hundred And Forty Euro] per day. As the bookmakers compete with the licensed vintner for the same leisure euro in the interests of equity and fairness it is inconceivable that they should be permitted extended hours on anything but the same terms. There is an additional factor to take into account here relative to the role of the small indigenous independent bookmaker. This type of business has been all but wiped out by the majors in Ireland over the past twenty years. One of the methods utilised by the majors is to pile on the overheads so as to make continuation in business unsustainable for the small bookmaker. Bet Beware is aware from research than many of these small bookmakers do not want to open from 07.00 until 22.00 at all, not even in summer. They are able to manage their businesses reasonably well with the existing hours regime and Bet Beware believes that they should not be compelled to adopt extended opening hours to suit the agenda of their well resourced competitors and at the same time incur extra costs. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: 1. On the matter of Social Responsibility it is the belief of Bet Beware that it is simply not enough to throw a bit of money at an organization, stick up that organizations posters in shop accompanied by a handful of leaflets and expect to have fulfilled on Social Responsibility. It is the opinion of Bet Beware that the off course bookmaker industry has been seriously remiss in its attitude to proper Social Responsibility. There are numerous instances of this but we will quote just three here by way of example: 1.1 How socially responsible is it to have a workforce of hundreds stationed in Tallaght in Dublin accepting bets by telephone from citizens of this state and then routing those bets to an off shore server for the purpose of avoiding the 1% betting duty at a time when the government has been desperate for funds. 1.2 How socially responsible is it to take in the region of 10 million in bets from a known, and now jailed as a consequence, An Post worker in Gorey without investigating the source of the funds. 1.3 How socially responsible is it to have for over 20 years utilised the results from the National Lottery to create a betting product that generates millions of euro in profits each year without as much as seeking the permission of the National Lottery to utilise its property and paying them a fee for doing so. RIGHT TO BET LEGISLATION The legislators need to seriously address the issue of Right To Bet legislation. The betting industry is the only industry known to Bet Beware that does not pay for certain amounts of its raw material. With the exception of Horse Racing, Soccer and maybe one other major sport the industry does not pay anything for the right to bet on an event. France has been the first European country to address this issue and perhaps information needs to be obtained from the French authorities as to the progress they are making in this area. Bet Beware is aware from research that many of the sporting organizations in Ireland are of the view that they should be paid a fee by the bookmakers for the use of their event but do not have the financial power to tackle the bookmakers on this issue.
BOOKMAKERS RULES The legislators need to address the issue of bookmaker shop rules and terms/conditions of business. It is clearly unacceptable that bookmakers advertise that a gambler can win 1 million in any one day s betting activity and then at the same time refuse to accept a bet that might have the capacity to win not much more than 1,000. ********************************************************************
General Secretary: John Roche johnrocheproperty@gmail.com. IRISH AMUSEMENT TRADES ASSOCIATION Millpark,Road, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford. Ireland. Phone 0867785861 Gambling Control Bill 2013. Opening Statement to Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. By John Roche. Our Association was established in 1979 and has a presence in almost every county representing gaming and amusement arcades. I will confine my comments to some of the sections of the Framework Document which directly impact on our sector. Our submission has covered the others. Head 1. Definitions and Interpretation, Framework Document. amusement hall/ amusement arcade refers to any covered area having amusement machines only, and which is open to young persons and as well as adults. (page 7) I.A.T.A response. This definition poses a major problem for our members insofar as the definition of an amusement arcade in Statutory Instrument 600 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 describe an amusement arcade as follows : Amusement arcade means premises for the playing of gaming machines, video games or other amusement machines. That definition reflected the history of planning permissions for these premises. We would request that the definition of all premises where both gaming and amusement machines are available for play remain as amusement arcade for planning purposes but that distinct permits be issued by the O.G.C.I. which clarify the status of each premises and that this permit must by law be displayed in a prominent position visible to the public. Head 1 the Framework Document. Amusement machine, The description of an amusement machine is given here and includes the words or by use of credits (page7) I.A.T.A. response. Delete the words or by use of credits. The purpose of this is that credit machines are not necessary in any premises where amusement or low stake low payout machines are in use. The same must apply with regard to establishments such as public houses or restaurants where small numbers of low stake low payout all cash machines may be permitted.
Head 1. The definition of a gaming machine is given here and excludes the words or by the use of credits (page9) I.A.T.A. response. Insert the words or by use of credits after debit cards. The purpose of this is to strengthen security in premises where gaming takes place. The use of credits allows machines to operate with less cash in the boxes therefore reducing the threat of robbery and danger to staff and customers. While not of value in amusement premises (under the proposals of the framework document) credit machines assist greatly in the safe and smooth running of gaming premises. Head 2. Commencement, transition, short title. Framework Document Section 2 (vi) Having a betting or gaming licence immediately prior to the time of commencement, or at that time, or by virtue of (i), (ii) or (iii) above, immediately following commencement of this Act does not confer any expectation, entitlement or presumption as to the granting of a licence under this Act in relation to the same or similar service. (page 12) I.A.T.A. response. While we accept that this is the norm in relation to any application for a new licence under the existing legislation and did not expect otherwise from the new Act we would draw the Committee s attention to Recommendation 18 of the report Regulating Gaming in Ireland which reads : The Committee recommends that in the development of a new regulatory regime careful consideration be given to the status of amusement halls currently licensed under the 1956 Act. We believe that the spirit of that statement also applies to arcades formerly licensed under the 1956 Act and now licenced under the 1992 Finance Act. This is particularly so when we consider that of the 114 local authorities only 43 operate the 1956 Act. This is important because currently gaming is regulated by two distinct acts which totally contradict each other. The 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act which applies to approx 60 arcades containing about 6,000 machines in 43 local authority areas and the 1992 Finance Act which applies to approx 100 arcades containing approx 7,000 machines in 71 local authority areas. This came about because of lack of cohesion back in 1992. On the issue of machine numbers we believe from our experience on the ground that a further possibly 4,000 machines are doing the rounds without any licences and at a given time about 2,000 machines would be off the floor in low season maintenance etc. This would bring the total number of machines in the country to about 19,000. The figure of 20,000 machines in unlicensed venues referred to recently is incorrect as it does not allow for the 1992 licences. The solution to this confusion lies in this framework document and if the proposals contained therein to replace the 1956 Act and the relevant sections of the 1992 Finance Act, are followed through, the Oireachtas will have dealt with this problem for once and all. Head 17 sub section 6 of the Framework Document deals with licences specifically categories 2A gaming arcade licence and 2B amusement arcade licence, This section proposes that a 2b licence is not required if the number of machines is 4 or less. (page 21) I.A.T.A. response.
Replace the number 4 with the number 2 where a 2B licence is not required. It is the belief of this Association that any number of machines above 2 has the potential to change the income stream of a business to a sufficiently significant extent as to change the nature of the business, therefore should be licensed. Head 17 Framework Document. This deals with the total separation of gaming and amusement machines within premises and proposes separate entrances. (page 22) I.A.T.A. response. This proposed provision is completely impractical, particularly for the small arcade, which physically cannot provide totally separate entrances. This will completely destroy the traditional seaside arcade. Division yes but separate entrance no. Head 53. Hours of business. We have dealt with this in our submission. We believe that the proposals are too restrictive and the O.G.C.I. should decide on the opening hours in relation to each application. It should be an operational matter rather than a policy issue. Head 76. Advisory Committee. Head 77. Establishment of Social Fund. We have dealt with these two heads in our submission and support the principle of both. In conclusion we welcome the proposal that the Gambling Control Bill will replace the outdated 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act and that the scheme proposes that the Minister through the O.G.C.I. will be the sole licensing authority and regulator. In the times ahead with the advances in technology that we can t even envisage now it is too much to expect that local authorities or anything other than the full authority of the State should have sole responsibility in this area. May I conclude by thanking the members and officials of the Committee and indeed all those in the Oireachtas and the Department of Justice whom Jim and I have met over the last 30 years on this issue for the courtesy shown to us.
PRESENTATION ON THE HEADS OF THE GAMBLING CONTROL BILL MADE ON BEHALF OF RICHARD QUIRKE OPENING STATEMENT BRIAN O CONNELL This presentation on the Heads of Gambling Control Bill is made on behalf of Richard Quirke. Mr. Quirke has over 30 years experience in the gaming industry in Ireland, and is the promoter of an Irish holiday resort. He advocates strict and comprehensive regulatory oversight of the industry in line with international best practice. He welcomes the reform of the gambling code proposed in the Heads of Gambling Control Bill, but believes that this otherwise positive development is flawed by the proposal to legislate against resort casinos. The restrictions on the scale of a casino are to be found at Heads 18(6)(i) and (7)(i). These proposed provisions restrict the size of any casino in Ireland to a maximum of 15 gaming tables and 25 gaming machines. These are the most arbitrary and uncompetitive restrictions. The proposal compares with the regime in the UK where there is no limit of table numbers and where there is a machine limit for a regional casino of 1,250 machines. The Irish proposal is therefore to have a gaming machine maximum limit of 4% of the UK limit. If Ireland is to exclude itself from a very lucrative tourist and entertainment opportunity with enormous employment, economic and fiscal benefits during this recession, the decision to do so should at least be informed by the evidence. The proposal fails to have regard to the fact the international policy on gambling favours resort casinos as a channel for gambling that is socially constructive. The Committee is requested to carefully consider the detailed Submission made on behalf of Mr. Quirke. The Submission considers the development of gaming policy in Ireland and abroad, and makes the following points: o o o o o To legislate against resort casinos would be an abrupt, unexplained and arbitrary reversal of Irish policy, founded on a confusion of principle and fact. Irish and international policy has recognised the benefit of directing the desire to gamble towards legal channels that are seen as socially constructive, and away from undesirable convenient gambling. Resort casinos are amongst the most socially constructive of gambling environments, being responsible for most of the social and economic benefits traced to modern gambling and little or none of the social costs. The international experience is that resort casinos produce considerable fiscal and economic benefits, are catalysts for regional regeneration and tourism, and provide significant employment in both the construction and operational phases. Resort casinos are the best vehicles for encouraging responsible gambling and mitigating problem gambling. 1
o o o o o o o Resort casinos are easier to regulate and supervise than most gambling enterprises. The decision to legislate against resort casinos is intolerably paternalistic and has been made against the evidence on the subject. The proposal to cap casinos in Ireland at a scale of 4% of the size of their UK equivalent is designed to stunt the development of the sector and to ensure that it is uncompetitive. The policy of retarding Irish on-land casinos will channel casino activity towards unregulated off-shore internet poker and other casino games thereby leading to problem gambling and sending revenue out of the State. To legislate against the scale of bricks and mortar casinos is inconsistent with the unrestricted scale of every other form of gambling, from online casino activity to the enormous scale of State-sponsored lottery gambling. The proposal is in fundamental breach of best regulatory practice by fossilising the licensing of casinos, by restricting competition, by creating Irish regulatory disadvantage, and by making the Minister the licensing authority rather than creating an independent Gambling Regulator. These flaws are a direct result of the failure to carry out a Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Heads of Bill as required by the White Paper Regulating Better. Resort casinos will soon compete throughout the EU within regulatory codes that facilitate their development. Ireland stands in a unique position for a high-end resort casino because of its volume of tourism from the U.S. and the unique synergies available with horseracing and other entertainment facilities. It would be a profound error to reject the extraordinary opportunities presented to Ireland by the destination resort casino. If those opportunities pass, the error will never be capable of remedy. The Committee on Justice, Defense and Equality is urged to give this issue the consideration it deserves, to weigh up the evidence on both sides of the argument, and not to rush to hasty judgment on the basis of prejudice against the unknown. It is recommended that, in the overall interests of society, the proposed legislation to reform the law of gambling in Ireland ought to include provision for the licensing of resort casinos in appropriate circumstances. 2