Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I can see why someone would want a regulator but I believe it is time for new thinking in this whole area. Why can a Minister not do the job? At least if we are not happy with a Minister he can be kicked out. We can do that and there is public accountability. When a politician makes a decision the public can do something about it to effect change. We have had multiple instances of regulatory capture over the years, most famously with the banks. They were all playing golf together as the banking system was destroyed because of regulatory capture. We have seen other regulators in the media discussing price rises and so on but they seem to be acting on behalf of the industry they are regulating. One does not know what is going on. They see their area as their fiefdom and they become so entrenched with the industry and so knowledgeable of it that they cannot see the other side. There must be a way of doing this differently. One way would be to have a politician do it. In the United States, people in such positions are routinely elected. Another way to do it - the Minister might consider this - would be to appoint a regulator from within the staff of the Department to do it as a side job within the Department, rather than establishing a new office. A relatively senior official could carry out these functions and it would not be too much. Why not do it within the Department? Does it have to be independent of the Department or could it operate independently within the Department to avoid the opening of a new office? The Minister would have theoretical oversight of the official and therefore there would be some political responsibility. There may be an example to follow in the appeals office of the Department of Social Protection, which is independent but remains part of the Department.

I urge the Minister to consider some of these possibilities because the legislation allows the Minister to appoint a person on such terms and conditions as he may determine. Therefore, he could appoint someone to do it for nothing - for example, a businessman who is independently wealthy and honest and whom the public would accept. Let such a person be the regulator, as in the case of an honorary consul. As far as I can see, there will not be a great deal of work to be carried out. The regulator would not be regulating a market as such but only one entity. I am concerned that if we set up an independent office, it would simply become a sub-office of the lottery company. It may be better to have someone who is completely independent and who will take a wider approach, because he is not dealing only with a lottery company. If such a person was dealing only with the lottery company he would start to see everything from the point of view of the lottery company. That is the natural way of things. It has happened time and again with regulators in this country and other countries.