Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We had much discussion in the other House on this issue and I have given it a fair deal of consideration. The points made are very reasonable. I am not in the business of setting up any entity for the sake of it, but I am convinced by the argument put to us by my advisers and by the specialist advisers we brought in that this is the best way to go. I have no wish to hang my hat entirely in respect of the potential for the office to migrate to something else. I have no wish to make commitments on that, but it is something I would like to see and I believe it would be a good thing if we had a more regulated structure for gambling. Anyway, that is for another day, another Minister and another debate in the House.

I made a point in the other House and I have no wish to sound discordant in this regard. Reference was made to the failures of banking regulation. Bluntly, the regulator is only as good as the policy set down. There was a determination of light-touch policy that broke up the powers of the Central Bank at the time. A committee made those recommendations and they were enacted. Light-touch regulation was the order of the day. However, not all regulators have failed. I believe we need to have an independent regulator to ensure the law is applied. I do not believe the regulator would be captured by the lottery company because the terms and conditions, wages and so on would be set by the Minister and not by the lottery company. Therefore, being nice to the lottery company would not result in an enhanced wage packet or bonuses for the regulator. We will set the schedule of payments to support the office of the regulator.

Senator Byrne makes a fair point. Up to now the Minister has been the regulator and it has worked. That is true. However, this is a new departure, and since we are modernising the legislation it is appropriate to take the regulation of games or the regulation of how the lottery is done away from the Minister and leave it to a professional, competent regulator. I have acceded to the request made in the other House that the regulator be amenable to the Houses. It would be proper for this committee, if it believed he or she was not doing his or her job, to bring the regulator in and put questions and get a regular report. There will be an annual report as well. The regulator will be subject to a good deal of scrutiny, probably in a way that a civil servant would not, unless one established the office of the regulator - I believe this is what Senator Byrne is suggesting - and appointed a civil servant to that office. Is that what he is suggesting?