Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I understand we are taking together all of those amendments referring to the regulator.

I understand why the office of regulator is being established in this legislation. I recall from the Committee Stage discussions that the Minister indicated that in the first instance the regulator's concern will be the national lottery but that it is envisaged that the regulator would have a broader role. This is the core point of the legislation that illustrates most graphically the shift in model. Of course, the regulator is necessary because the core public interest basis of the lottery is to be replaced by a privatising-for-profit model. The regulator will mean that the Minister will no longer have any involvement in the company, hold shares and appoint directors. That is the rationale for it and it is a worrying one.

As I said to the Minister earlier, in the course of this debate at Second Stage he stated, "It is fair to say concerns have never been raised about the integrity, probity or ethos of our lottery." That is correct. My party has acknowledged that it has been a success on every front. The licence is up again for renewal. That is not an issue. That, in itself, is not a rationale for changing the model so fundamentally but the Minister is choosing to do so. The office of the regulator most clearly points to that shift in ethos which is not a desirable one for the lottery or its beneficiaries.

Amendment No. 17 is contained within this basket of amendments. I raised this with the Minister on Committee Stage. It relates to a person holding the position of regulator who would then leave that position and the legislation envisages a 12 month prohibition for that person in respect of taking up another position in the private sector that might constitute a conflict of interest given his or her public role. As I pointed out on Committee Stage, that runs right against the grain of the programme for Government commitment, which states, "We will amend the rules to ensure that no senior public servant (including political appointees) or Minister can work in the private sector in any area involving a potential conflict of interest with their former area of public employment, until at least two years have elapsed after they have left the public service." The commitment states "at least two years", and yet the Minister, in establishing this office of regulator, is sticking to a 12 month prohibition period. I could not understand on Committee Stage why the Minister would not accept my amendment, given that it is in line with the programme for Government commitment. Also, the nature of the lottery, and the gambling sector across the State in which, as the Minister has told us, he envisages the regulator having a role, is all the more reason the Minister would provide for a two-year cooling off period should the regulator leave that position.

I ask the Minister again to reconsider it. I ask him to support this amendment. It makes sense. As the Minister will be aware, I am opposed to this legislation from start to finish. I do not believe that he should be tampering with the model of the lottery but if he is intent on establishing an office of regulator, surely he should stick at a minimum to his own programme for Government commitments in respect of the public interest and public confidence in any individual who would take on that role of regulator. I commend amendment No. 17 to the Minister.

See this speech in context