Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We discussed these matters at the justice committee and the Minister of State referred earlier to protecting people, harmful gambling and people at risk. We believe that at least one member of the authority should have the lived experience and personal knowledge of what it is like to go through the throes of addiction so that, when the authority meets, there is a voice in the room that can speak for those who are the most vulnerable and most affected. We can work together on this issue. I am not sure why it has not been taken on board. It was stated at the meeting that there might not be a person with – I cannot remember the exact phraseology – the necessary education or experience. I would argue that, if someone has been in the throes of gambling addiction or severe gambling harm, come out the other side and is in recovery, that person’s voice and experience need to be included in any discussion by the gambling regulatory authority.

The opposite side of the coin is found in the second part of amendment No. 17, which reads: “no more than 2 members have recent (within the past 5 years) paid employment with any licence holder or potential licence holder.” We are trying to ensure that the authority is not filled up with lads form the industry and that they cannot influence the authority in a way that is not balanced or fair.

These are important issues. The makeup of the authority is crucial. We do not want the authority being influenced unduly by the industry. We want to work with the industry, as will the regulator, but we also want to help the people whom the Minister of State mentioned in his previous contribution and to address the major problem Ireland has with gambling addiction. If the Minister of State really is concerned, he will take this amendment on board.

Regarding amendment No. 20, we have concerns about outsourcing, be it of inspections or of research. Why would the gambling authority not have the in-house expertise and resources to do the work it needs to do? If those are to be outsourced, then an annual report needs to be produced so that this activity can be scrutinised. We do not want to see such activity being pushed out of the way. We believe that the regulator should have the resources to do this work in house. We know we will be able to trust that work and that it will be independent and transparent.

We are giving the Minister of State positive and constructive solutions. He might have been annoyed a while ago, but surely he can recognise that we are trying to be constructive on this Bill. I hope so, anyway.

See this speech in context