Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are different issues here and I can sense some of them have stronger support than others. I will give the reason while I have both of them. I am very happy for them to be dealt with separately. I am not happy for it to solely rely on engaging with the future commission because I do think gambling is one of the key examples of that harmful content and harmful conduct piece that needs regulation. I think it is really important that it is clear. Some of the amendments simply say that this may be one of the areas the commission would address. I think it should be named and a signal sent because it is vastly profitable. The profits of some companies have quadrupled during 2020 to 2021. It is harmful to persons. I was looking at some information and discovered that people in Ireland lose over €1 billion per year. People are losing significant amounts of money. I, as, I am sure, everybody here, can think of multiple examples of people whose lives have been ruined and ruined very quickly by gambling and gambling addiction. Ireland has a very high level of that addiction, which is where the harmful conduct piece comes in. Even if some of my hard prohibitions may not be accepted, I want to be really clear that targeting in terms of addiction, including gambling addiction, needs to be really addressed as a form of harmful conduct.

I will speak to the issue in terms of speculative financial activity. It is slightly different and I recognise that they are not the same. Regarding removing gambling from sports events, about which Senator Cassells spoke very passionately, it can be done because we did it with alcohol. We were told it was impossible to do it for alcohol. I pay particular tribute to Senator Black, who fought really hard around those issues in terms of the alcohol regulation Bill. We were told they were so intrinsically entwined that it would be impossible to separate out alcohol advertising and sport but it can be done and similarly it can be done with gambling.

I am speaking to speculative financial activity and cryptocurrency because I am seriously concerned. Regarding the driver of the crash in 2008, the bailouts we had to have, the State underwriting speculative activity on a massive scale, that kind of vulnerability and exposure we had in 2008 where those who effectively gambled ended up being bailed out by the State, I worry that we are seeing a new cohort and a new risk emerging that has not been identified early enough. Again, there are very large interests with lots of money. There is this same theme of trying to get people in on the stock market early. I worry that we are creating a situation where effectively, sometimes very vulnerable people will be used as a human shield against the regulation of cryptocurrency because ordinary people will to be a small extent tied in and people will be vulnerable if there is regulation or an end to cryptocurrency mining, which environmentally we may need to do. I worry that we will have that same situation whereby so many ordinary persons will find themselves tied into the fate of a speculative pyramid scheme that the State is effectively in a position where it needs either light-touch regulate it or bail it out. I really worry that we are creating a major risk and that individuals will be vulnerable to that. This is an area we need to regulate even from an environmental perspective, as well as from the perspective of financial risk. I am worried that persons with very little money to spare will have been targeted by predatory advertising that promises them things that will not be delivered and they will be the ones who suffer from any negative outcome from crashes relating to cryptocurrency. I am very serious about that area. I accept that they are different areas but they have a similar target and way of operating but I am happy to address them separately in future amendments on Report Stage. I am concerned about both.