Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Consistent with my opposition to the Bill generally, I oppose the section. A regulator is needed where one was not needed before. A separate body is required because whereas the Minister was previously a shareholder of the national lottery, he will not be under the new regime. That is proof that this is privatisation. One considers the experience of two sectors where regulators failed disastrously. The Financial Regulator failed utterly to deal with a deregulated financial services and banking sector. When concerns were expressed about the liberalisation and deregulation of the banking sector, great assurances were given by the Governments of the day that the Financial Regulator was keeping an eye on things. The Financial Regulator, however, went native and failed completely to rein in the vultures and the financial and banking sector. Another example is the Taxi Regulator. The deregulation of the taxi industry has been an utter disaster. The Taxi Regulator, as any taxi driver will tell one, has failed catastrophically to deal with the consequences of the deregulation of the taxi sector. Both cases represent examples of neoliberalism gone mad, but here we have it again.

It is sad that we should be doing this. It is indicative of the fact that the lottery is being privatised that there is a need for a regulator. It is more than likely that we will have another useless quango that is supposed to rein in what is likely to be a big push to expand online gambling by whatever private operator takes over. Judging by the past experience of regulators, we should not expect too much from the new regulator. It is another reason the Minister should retain direct control whereby whoever holds his office is accountable at some level to the public and the Oireachtas. The appointment of a regulator pushes things at one remove from direct accountability.