James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chair. Amendment No. 47 involves two new insertions in section 13, namely, the appointment of a person with lived experience of problem gambling to the board of the authority and a limit on the number of members of the board who have been employed in the gambling sector.

Given the scale of its remit, membership of the authority should reflect a broad range of expertise in relation to the gambling sector. Section 15 of the Bill provides that the Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the criteria and procedures that are to apply to the selection process for members of the authority. Such criteria include that members would possess experience in matters such as gambling activities and separately, the pathology and treatment of addiction, with particular reference to gambling addiction. Both of these criteria can relate to and encompass lived experience of gambling. It is my intention that, when it comes to setting up the process to invite applications for membership of the authority, the process will reflect the need for lived experience of gambling. Additionally, the authority will have power to establish advisory committees to assist it on a range of matters relating to its functions and benefiting from the lived experience of those affected by gambling will be an essential element to these committees. Therefore, I will not be accepting the proposed amendment on this matter.

Moving to the second proposed insertion, section 14(3) of the Bill already explicitly provides for the independence of the authority when exercising its functions and this does not need to be restated.

On amendment No. 48, I cannot accept this amendment as I am satisfied that 14(1)(o) of the Bill addresses the same matter, by specifying that one of the authority’s functions will be to engage in research activities in respect of gambling activities.

As for amendment No. 49, I cannot accept it as I am satisfied that section 14(1)(c), which provides that it shall be a function of the authority to establish, maintain and administer the social impact fund, already addresses this issue. As the Senators will be aware, a key purpose of the social impact fund will be to support the provision of services for the treatment of compulsive or excessive gambling. On this basis, I believe the matters the Senators have raised are already addressed in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are minor drafting amendments to accurately reflect the functions of the authority as a result of previous amendments to the Bill in Dáil Éireann.

I cannot accept amendment No. 52 as I am satisfied that section 14(1)(c), which provides that it shall be a function of the authority to establish, maintain and administer the social impact fund, already addresses the issue. As the Senators will be aware, a key purpose of the social impact fund will be to support the provision of public education and awareness-raising measures for the purposes of highlighting the social impact of compulsive or excessive gambling. On this basis, I believe the matters the Senators have raised are already addressed in this Bill.

Regarding amendments Nos. 53 to 55, inclusive, I cannot accept the amendments as I believe the matter they seek to address is already dealt with in the Bill. Section 31 provides that the authority may undertake, commission or collaborate with research projects regarding gambling or gambling activities, including with regard to gambling addiction. In addition, the other activities specified in this section are not exhaustive and would not preclude the authority from engaging in research relating to harms associated with excessive and compulsive gambling, in general keeping itself aware of emerging trends with regard to gambling, or staying aware of international best practices. I would expect nothing less from a modern regulatory body.

On amendment No. 56, I cannot accept this amendment as there are existing provisions in the Bill that will render it unnecessary. Under section 14(1)(m), one of the functions of the authority will be to be a competent authority under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. Furthermore, I will also be bringing amendments to the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 to specifically designate the authority as a competent authority for the purposes of monitoring gambling service providers’ compliance with money laundering obligations on the sector, as per section 60 of the Act.

In this context, the authority will be subject to the requirements of section 63D of the 2010 Act, which provides that competent authorities must adopt a risk-based approach to the exercise of their supervisory functions and review their assessment of the money laundering and terrorist financing risk profile of the businesses they supervise. There is already an obligation there to carry out the risk assessment. The anti-money laundering steering committee, which the proposed amendment refers to, is not provided for in legislation currently. On this basis, I will not be accepting this amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 57, as I am satisfied that the matters raised by the Senator are addressed by section 57 of the Bill, I cannot accept the amendment. Furthermore, the matters are also addressed under the revised and updated code of practice for the governance of State bodies of 2016.

I cannot accept amendment No. 58 as it is not necessary that members of the board of the authority should need to have expertise in relation to data protection. This function would be provided by the authority’s legal and data protection teams.

I cannot accept amendment No. 59, as I am satisfied that the matters raised by the Senators are addressed by section 57 of the Bill.

On amendment No. 60, which pertains to section 17, I am aware of the concerns at the potential level of outsourcing the authority could engage in but I am of the view that sufficient oversight for this is already provided for in the Bill. The Bill provides that the chief executive of the authority will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and other committees for the authority’s activities. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the Bill includes sufficient safeguards and requirements to ensure that the authority complies with all necessary guidance and procedures, while recognising that while the authority will need to rely on external expertise, it will be obliged to adhere to all public sector procedures for all matters, including procurement.

As I have stated before, expenditure of public funds must be done in ways that are appropriate, fully transparent and accountable. The authority, as a responsible public sector organisation, will be expected to report on procurement and its engagement of external third parties in its annual accounts and annual reports. It will be a statutory obligation for it to submit its annual accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Both the annual accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on these accounts must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Additionally, the Bill provides that the authority is required to provide information in writing regarding its funding when requested by the Minister or the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Section 33 also provides that the Minister may request the authority to report on any matter relating to the authority’s functions, including procurement and financial matters, and the authority will be obliged to comply.

It is for these reasons that I am satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, includes sufficient oversight of the authority’s activities and will not be accepting the Senators’ amendment today.

Overall, we have to be very careful, when establishing an authority, not to make it overly prescriptive. Listing out a lot of individual lists end up not broadening but actually narrowing the remit of the authority. When you start making lists in the legislation, the courts will often interpret that as meaning what is not in the list is not part of its role. We have to be careful of trying to micromanage the operation of an authority through legislation. I do not think it is an effective way to establish an authority.